Talk:Andrew Tate/Archive 7

Archive 1

←

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Notability of Thunberg-Tate twitter exchange

Normally, I would agree that tweets are not notable -- but Greta Thunberg's response to Tate has, as of this moment, 172.6 million views, 437,900 retweets, and 2.6 million "likes." Moreover, the exchange between the two has been reported by dozens of news sources worldwide including NBC, Rolling Stone, The Independent, etc. That's a lot of ink (real and digital) being expended on this event, so I believe it's notable.Smallchief (talk) 15:56, 29 December 2022 (UTC)

A lot of ink or not, I don't think it has anything do with "Social Media Bans". 91.155.113.200 (talk) 16:36, 29 December 2022 (UTC)

Agree with Smallchief; it's due. DFlhb (talk) 17:12, 29 December 2022 (UTC)

In my opinion this is not notable per WP:NOTNEWS. If anyone is still talking about it after a few days then maybe inclusion could be justified. TWM03 (talk) 18:28, 29 December 2022 (UTC)

It's NOTNEWS and I just removed it. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:19, 29 December 2022 (UTC)

And it was restored. Smallchief, where's the WP:LASTING impact of a Twitter dunk? – Muboshgu (talk) 21:36, 29 December 2022 (UTC)

The proper standard to apply is WP:NNC, not WP:NOTNEWS which applies to article topics. WP:NNC applies to content. If there are reliable third-party sources that mention Thunberg's tweet and assert its notability then it can definitely remain as long as it is given only due weight. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad (talk) 21:42, 29 December 2022 (UTC)

It's all the same. Preponderance of sources does not guarantee inclusion in an article or its own article, depending on the circumstances, such as the fact that a Twitter dunk does not have any significance outside of the 24-hour news cycle. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:05, 29 December 2022 (UTC)

Is it more notable if it was indirectly the cause of his arrest by the Romanian authorities? There's some information floating here and there that the his response video containing a pizza box from a Romanian chain might've tipped off the authorities of his whereabouts. Hamuko (talk) 22:13, 29 December 2022 (UTC)

This comment is exactly why we wait on reliable sources, and avoid WP:OR, especially for criminal accusations. The Romanian police obviously already know where he lives, because they already raided his house in April. DFlhb (talk) 22:20, 29 December 2022 (UTC)

I think you are misreading my comment.

Anyways, that belief is starting to now pop up in news reports as well, so it's going to start popping up more and more in discussions unless further evidence comes up.

[1]https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-11583711/Andrew-Tates-luxury-villa-Romania-raided-police.html Hamuko (talk) 22:57, 29 December 2022 (UTC)

The DailyMail is a junk news source; see WP:DAILYMAIL. My point is that this claim has no credibility and hasn't been echoed by any credible news source. DFlhb (talk) 23:37, 29 December 2022 (UTC)

Ok, we now have a clear denial of the pizza box nonsense, by Reuters: "However, the anti organised-crime unit representative said that it was not the case that Tate's arrest had been made as a result of the pizza boxes."[2], and the BBC: the pizza box is not thought to be relevant[3] DFlhb (talk) 16:50, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

Also NYT and WaPo. For the curious, here's an explanation of where the pizza box claim came from, courtesy of Ben Dreyfuss. TLDR, seems it originated with a tweet from Alejandra Caraballo and went viral from there.

Regardless though, I think given Thunberg's tweet is now the 6th (5th?) most-liked tweet ever, this is undoubtedly a noteworthy part of his "social media presence". Endwise (talk) 22:39, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

I don't think that one police source refuting something is grounds for something being completely "disputed". I think saying something like the claim is disputed would be more appropriate. Maptrainguy (talk) 11:50, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

The situation with Greta takes on a whole new meaning if the pizza box in it led to his arrest. LOL. – Muboshgu (talk) 00:22, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

Support inclusion, per reasons given by Smallchief and the "due weight" provision by AllGloryToTheHypnotoad. - Boneyard90 (talk) 22:14, 29 December 2022 (UTC)

Funny thing is, he was arrested and Romania along with his brother.

Greta helped make it happen, but not the Greta you're thinking of. ScienceSnob2602 (talk) 00:12, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

Pardon me, meant to say he was arrested IN Romania along with his brother.

I find it more ironic than anything, the entire exchange between him and her. If he didn't want fire, perhaps he shouldn't have made smoke. ScienceSnob2602 (talk) 00:14, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

Two things

Looking at the article history, it seems to me that too many reversions and discussions have been taking place in the edit summaries instead of gaining consensus on this talk page for any potentially arguable changes. Please see WP:SUMMARYNO.

Also, is there a way of autocollapsing the kickboxing record? I had a quick look but I'm not familiar with the template and didn't want to waste time or mess it up. In my view this list adds unnecessary length to the article and hinders readability. Laterthanyouthink (talk) 13:21, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

We're not supposed to collapse tables in articles (see MOS:DONTHIDE and MOS:PRECOLLAPSE, collapsing is terrible for users with accessibility needs and mobile users, among others). The collapse parameter was removed altogether for album track listing, for example. And I'm not aware of any fighter BLP that does it. Given the table of contents I don't really see how people can get lost; the table is placed at the end of the article, as is common practice, to prevent it from "burying" article contents.

Re: edit summaries: fair point. DFlhb (talk) 15:28, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

"Most-liked Tweet"

A reference to a Tweet is a self-published source and does not indicate anything about "most-liked" status. According to List of most-liked tweets, Twitter does not publish such information. Unfortunately that same list is lacking in reliable secondary sources which it claims do cover the topic. I am unable to support an assertion about a "most-liked Tweet" that relies on Wikipedia's own rankings. Elizium23 (talk) 12:39, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

As I added this content originally, I see your concern, but still think it is valuable information. I have added a link to a Mirror story about the tweet, which ranks it as one of the "top 10 most-liked tweets in history". It is not the most reputable source of course, but in my mind good a enough for this kind of content. WatkynBassett (talk) 13:20, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

I had not seen that you deleted the content already. Whould you be okay with the addition, if this article is its source: Greta Thunberg's Andrew Tate putdown among top 10 most-liked tweets in history WatkynBassett (talk) 13:25, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

Not a good source; that's just WP:CITOGENESIS of our poorly sourced article. The fact is, we have no idea unless Twitter confirms it, since there's no way for us to know if any tweets are missing from our top tweets list. I don't oppose this being included, but we should look for a better citation. DFlhb (talk) 14:10, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

@DFlhb that's not true though. As far as we know those are the ten most liked tweets and until a new one comes out that's a perfectly reasonable list to make. Pol Cəl (talk) 19:29, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

We cannot source information to other Wikipedia articles, since they are user-generated content. DFlhb (talk) 19:36, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit requests on 30 December 2022

"Early Life" Section General Flow edit

From: Emory Andrew Tate III was born in Washington, D.C. He is of mixed race. His African-American father Emory Tate was a chess International Master. His mother, Eileen Ashleigh, worked as a catering assistant. He has a brother, Tristan. He was raised in Goshen, Indiana, and later in Chicago, Illinois. After his parents divorced, his mother, his brother, and he moved to England, where he was raised as a Christian in his mother's hometown of Luton. He learned to play chess at the age of five and competed in adult tournaments as a child.

To: Emory Andrew Tate III was born to Emory Tate and Eileen Ashleigh in Washington, D.C., 1986(if source of his birthdate is found). His father was an African American chess International Master, and his mother was a British catering assistant. Tate and his brother Tristan were raised in Goshen, Indiana, and later in Chicago, Illinois before their parents' divorce. After the separation, his mother brought both brothers to England, where he was raised as a Christian in his mother's hometown of Luton. Tate at the age of five, learned to play chess and competed in adult tournaments as a child. (Last line needs source.) TheeChEese (talk) 20:58, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

I like this change; waiting for a 3rd opinion. The YouTube citation you inserted can't be used though (only WP:ABOUTSELF statements can rely on a self-published source); we would keep the existing citations. DFlhb (talk) 21:01, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

Regarding just the birthday part: ""Born in December 1986 in the Washington region..." --Super Goku V (talk) 21:38, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

Nice. We can combine that with the tweet ("December 1st") that was removed, and the full date is supported. DFlhb (talk) 21:41, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

Nevermind; they literally ripped that off from us, including the citation. It's not additional confirmation, it's just the long-estalbished WP:ABOUTSELF sourcing, basically being laundred through a WP:RS. DFlhb (talk) 21:45, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

I thought the ABOUTSELF issue was with the parents and not his age. Additionally, the video doesn't appear to confirm his birthday unless I missed it the first time. Though, they literally ripped that off from us would be a "Citogenesis" problem. --Super Goku V (talk) 03:04, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

Just watched the video again. Seems you were right it doesn't include the year; I thought it did. Don't know where else the year could be sourced; perhaps his website, which says December 14, 1986 (likely a typo); we could maybe use that for the year, and the tweet for the day/month, but it may be a little borderline. (Very) slightly OR, but given the tweet (December 1st birthday), and the wide coverage that he's 36, it seems entirely verifiable and true that he was born in 1986. And to address another argument I've seen: given that he posts his birthday publicly, it's unlikely he wants it kept off Wikipedia (which he never indictaed).

(BTW, I wasn't saying ABOUTSELF was a problem for his age. The opposite: it's unusable for claims about others, but allows us to use public declarations he makes about when his birthday is.) DFlhb (talk) 03:26, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

Ah, gotcha. Then, could his website work for the birthday? "Emory Andrew Tate III (born December 14, 1986) is..." --Super Goku V (talk) 03:30, 31 December 2022 (UTC) (Amended: Whoops, just re-read your message where you addressed his website. Amended by Super Goku V (talk) on 03:35, 31 December 2022 (UTC))

Saw your amendment. Just to add: see this edit summary[4]; the 14th vs 1st was discussed around that time. Page has said December 1st, 1986 for many years (and survived presumed/hypothetical COI edits). DFlhb (talk) 03:36, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

Ah, what a fun mess this is. Anyways, I did some more digging. Regarding his website, here is an Internet Archive version of it from 2019. Literally copied from Wikipedia, date included. What is odd is that they clearly took the information from us and then later cleaned it up to remove the links and (potentially) add more information while leaving the incorrect birthday. Going though the history of this article, the birthday was "1987" from 2014 to 2015, though the infobox and lede conflicted with both "1987" and "1986" sometime after January 2015. It was updated to "December 14, 1986" sometime in 2016 and stayed that way until 2019. Sometime in 2019, it was changed to show "(born December 1, 1986)" in the lede and "December 14, 1986 (age 36)" in the infobox. So this has been a problem for awhile. (If you want the edit revisions, let me know and I will dig them up.) Back on track, there was an 2015 article written about his father's passing that lists Andrew's birthday as December 1st, 1986. Your thoughts? --Super Goku V (talk) 04:06, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

Interesting history! I think the Chessdrum article is very unlikely to be citogenesis, since the author knew Emory Tate; so I'd personally consider it reliable for this purpose. But people may argue that it's self-published, and wouldn't work under WP:ABOUTSELF.

However, NYT[5] described him as a 35-year old this summer, so if we accept the Dec 1st tweet under WP:ABOUTSELF, then the birth year must have been 1986. So we could use the tweet for month/day, and the NYT for the year. DFlhb (talk) 04:18, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

Hmm. That article is currently being used on his father's article to source a claim, so that might be a problem then. To focus on the date, Tweet + NYT sounds like a good route to me. --Super Goku V (talk) 04:25, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

I shouldn't lend too much credence to others' arguments; the author is a university professor, is well-known in the chess world, especially focuses on black chess players (vital, due to WP:SYSTEMICBIAS), and his book has received very significant input from chess grandmasters; I think he's absolutely reliable. The ChessDrum website falls under WP:UBO since it's been lauded by the NYT and Radio France among others; it shouldn't be used for contentious labels and such, or criminal accusations, but I'd consider it good for anything else. DFlhb (talk) 04:35, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

With the date issue resolved or almost resolved, I will say that the text looks fine to me, so long as there isn't any sourcing issues. The only part that seems to be weird is the "Tate and his sibling" part when the text mentioned "his brother Tristan" in the prior sentence. Seems like we could just use Tristan in place of "his sibling" to me, but maybe I am missing something. --Super Goku V (talk) 04:29, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

Or "brought both brothers"; though I like your version too. DFlhb (talk) 04:35, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for doing the work on establishing sources for DOB. Do we have a source for "Emory Andrew Tate III"? As far as I can see at a quick look, the citations that follow all refer to him as Andrew Tate. If someone can find the correct source, repeat the name in the first section of the body, followed immediately by that citation, that would be great. Laterthanyouthink (talk) 06:25, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

From the Shabazz 2017 book, page 257. DFlhb (talk) 06:32, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

I respect that. I just thought the paragraph sounded rather choppy and awkward. Also, nice digging around for the source of his birthdate. It seemed like a very confusing journey you guys had ha ha.  TheeChEese (talk) 18:49, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

Something I just thought of: instead of the proposed "Tate and Tristan" (awkward and somewhat confusing), wouldn't it be better to say "Andrew and Tristan"? The reasons we usually prefer last name vs first name don't really apply in this case, since they both have the same last name. DFlhb (talk) 19:01, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

Do you mean "Tate and his brother Tristan" in my revision? I re-readed the sentence with your replacement, and I agree it sounds more natural/ TheeChEese (talk) 19:08, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

Wait, or do you mean the replacement in the part where after they moved to England, of "Tate and his sibling" -> "Tate and Triston" And now change it into "Andrew and Tate"? Because I think it works. TheeChEese (talk) 19:10, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

Right, I mean your second interpretation. The first "Tate and his brother Tristan" is necessary, to explain who Tristan is, since it's the first time he's brought up. DFlhb (talk) 19:12, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

I already changed the line into "Andrew and Tate" for now, but just one thing: Doesn't it sound abrupt when we suddenly changed how we refer him? Even though I agree with matching the first names, "Andrew" popped out like a different person when added into the paragraph. TheeChEese (talk) 19:18, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

Agree; what about "brought both brothers"? DFlhb (talk) 19:51, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

D'accord and done. Anything else to change, before you guys send it off to the page? TheeChEese (talk) 20:44, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

I've added part of your proposal to the article; but didn't insert it verbatim, since I think there are still BLP concerns with naming his still-alive mother who isn't a public figure (WP:BLPNAME). The "raised in Goshen, and later in Chicago" part was also changed after your proposal, since the book is unclear on the chronology; I think it's fine to just list both without stating which came first. DFlhb (talk) 20:53, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

References

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 2 January 2023

updating n fixing some things including his arrest 2A02:C7E:2C19:6500:7D85:B456:F8E0:DF7E (talk) 14:25, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

 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. DFlhb (talk) 14:33, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

Tate is British, opening of lead should reflect this

Tate is a British citizen via his mother and considers himself British.[6] We can note later that he also has US citizenship. 2A00:23C8:504:2501:3D4F:9ECA:B7E0:9118 (talk) 17:57, 24 December 2022 (UTC)

Tate was born in the United States and "grew up" in the United States, and fought for the United States for most of his kickboxing career. To an extent, he also considers himself American. It's my understanding that he doesn't live in Britain or the United States today, at least not permanently. But per his Piers Morgan interview that you linked, do other editors think it's within the bounds of Wikipedia policy (maybe WP:ABOUTSELF?) use a subject's preference in identifying themselves as British, American, or British-American? Askarion ✉ 14:45, 25 December 2022 (UTC)

British-American is still probably the best and most accurate term. While "British" would be fine under MOS:IDENTITY, it would also be confusing to readers, given his place of birth, childhood in the US, and fighting career under the US flag (while living in the UK).

People have argued in the edit summaries that we should say "American and British" (with the "and") instead of British-American because otherwise, one of thse nationalities may be interpreted as his ethnicity. That doesn't make much sense to me; "British-American" just flows better and they're both commonly understood to be nationalities, not ethnicities. DFlhb (talk) 02:38, 1 January 2023 (UTC) (updated 18:08 UTC)

Also worthy of note is that the source we used to have for the term American-British was his own website, on which he lists himself as American-British in his own "about" section. Whether or not Tate himself wrote this or if it was written by an intern or whatever, the fact that this is still on his personal website probably means he endorses it in some way. Askarion ✉ 22:07, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

Audience

A particular light must be shed upon the demographic nature of Tate’s audience (majority young/teen men) and how Tate is radicalising this susceptible group. It has been well documented young audiences are highly impressionable (see source below) and that Tate is accountable for the negative ‘radicalising’ effects his social media influence has had on young men in promoting misogyny and ‘rape culture’ (see source below).

Tate presents a real danger to his audience as well as women. This must be highlighted in a documentation of his life and influence.

Proposed change: mention the radicalisation effects of Tate's influence on young men in particular

See this article in the BBC which describes an account of someone’s son being radicalised by Tate

Study concludes young audiences are more impressionable due, for example, to a ‘lack of judgement’: — Preceding unsigned comment added by 185.207.140.160 (talk • contribs) 22:58, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

References

Agreed, this article and its editors go to great lengths to appease his radical young fanbase of future incels. For instance, one editor here saying Tate's commentary and rhetoric is "misogynistic" but not himself. This is utterly contradictory, but because the psychopath doesn't like being labelled, this editor appeases him. If someone engages in misogynistic commentary for years and continues to do so, and that is how he gained his notoriety and fame, it is perfectly appropriate to call the man himself a misogynist. In our society now, unfortunately, being deliberately provocative like an immature little teenage bully, earns you attention and fame. User6619018899273 (talk) 22:50, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

Something about how he has a large audience of young men/teens/boys could go in Andrew Tate#Media. But to use the second source you linked there, about a general characterisation of young people as impressionable to make a point about Tate, would be a novel synthesis of published material, which Wikipedia considers original research and thus not fit for Wikipedia articles. Endwise (talk) 00:09, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

Tate's music song collection

Can you please put Tate's music collection on the page i.e Songs such as Sugar daddy, Suicide etc.. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jattlife121 (talk • contribs) 00:12, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

Support use of the label misogynist instead of misogynistic commentary

I request that the label misogynist be used in the opening few sentences to describe Tate, instead of describing his commentary as misogynistic. This man has gained all his fame and notoriety over the last five years just from his misogynistic rhetoric on social media alone; that has proved entertaining for his big audience of primarily adolescent men. He was a kick-boxer and chess player however it was his misogynistic commentary starting in 2016 that propelled him to international notoriety online, and has led to his millions of followers and large accumulation of wealth. All his interviews and online commentary will include one or two of his misogynistic views and primarily the main topic of many is what he thinks of women and their place in society and relationship to men. If he cannot be considered a 'misogynist', then no one can and avoiding the use of this hard label is ridiculous for a man like Tate. His commentary is described as misogynistic in this article because hundreds of comments of his have been misogynistic by definition, as reported by every reliable source out there, and he has consistently been using misogynistic commentary for the last several years. Just because he does not like the term or identify with it, does not mean he has to be appeased. In fact, as is mentioned in this article, Tate called himself a misogynist on several occasions while on others he opposed the label. Using the term misogynistic commentary instead of the label misogynist gives the impression to readers (who otherwise are not overtly familiar with Tate) that over the years Tate has occasionally made what can be considered by many to be misogynistic statements; the opposite is true, and Tate's entire online personality is built around misogyny and being a misogynist and saying provocative things about women. User6619018899273 (talk) 23:14, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

If he cannot be considered a 'misogynist', then no one can -- actually, yes. I don't think we can label anyone a misogynist in Wikipedia's voice (for the reasons given at WP:WIKIVOICE and MOS:LABEL). Words like "racist" or "misogynist" are value-laden and inherently opinionated, so we can't label people with them matter-of-factly. The most I think we can say is that the person is widely/generally described as misogynistic, and I think we can also say that their actions/commentary/ideology/etc is misogynistic. We cannot even describe Hitler himself as racist; see the article Adolf Hitler, which notes that his ideology is racist, and that he is described as evil:

The historian and biographer Ian Kershaw describes Hitler as "the embodiment of modern political evil". Under Hitler's leadership and racist ideology, the Nazi regime was responsible for the genocide of...

I think what we have now is okay. Endwise (talk) 00:29, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

Would agree completely. To reuse the Hitler example: to say that Hitler's ideology is racist is not to whitewash Hitler, or to say that he isn't racist; that would be absurd. But encyclopedic writing is different from everyday writing, and saying his ideology is racist is simply more precise. Vagueness, generalities, and fuzzy thinking are anathema to good encyclopedic writing. If we call someone a racist, what does that mean? It could include anything from overt belief in racial inferiority, to mere implicit bias or racial colorblindness. Yes, everyone knows Hitler was genocidal. But we're still bound to follow the rules of encyclopedic writing, so instead of "Hitler was racist/genocidal" (which would belong in a high school essay), we say that his ideology is racist, and that his genocide was a systemic policy that he proposed, propagandized, and implemented. That's how scholars would write, and it's how we write too. DFlhb (talk) 02:38, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 3 January 2023

Andrew Tate isn’t 190cm, has been proven to be short than Logan Paul and he comes in 188cm. https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/19442356/andrew-tate-height/amp/ TheSun so far is the most updated with his height being 185cm. Asln1912 (talk) 02:43, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: The Sun is not only an unreliable source, it's a deprecated source. See WP:THESUN. DFlhb (talk) 02:58, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 3 January 2023 (2)

Change Mysogynitic commentary to just commentary. It’s a wiki article not a blog post. Not everyone would say he is. Opinion is what makes something fact 2601:881:200:E990:FDD3:B634:D640:9063 (talk) 06:04, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: Read prior discussion. Sources are clear EvergreenFir (talk) 06:17, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

Note on Tate's misogyny in the lede

The Andrew Tate's misogyny and his misogynistic comments are in dispute, and my person, me, I believe that Tate is misogynistic, but there are several amount of people who does not share the same though with me or people as many of the editors of Andrew Tate's page, which most of them (What I saw) are from all this stuff of Human Rights, Feminism and LGBT, and that gives to me an Idea that convince you guys that we should put a note that says that the fact that Tate is misogynistic is disputed, this would fix and prevent future problems with ignorant people who are defensors of Tate such as https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Andrew_Tate&oldid=1131149061. Where Jattlife121 putted "" in the word Misogynistic. Reliable sources says that Andrew Tate is misogynistic, and by the definition of many dictionaries, He is misogynistic. Also, I'm not into the ethics and moral stuff, I do not really care about, but this is a high-profile and high-traffic article, so is better to prevent disputes and solve them by the fact that the Misogyny of Tate is disputed and that would be it. My proposal is to put a note (efn) and says that the misogyny of Tate is disputed, this would prevent vandalism, disputed and more text on the Talk Page. I understand that many people are disgusted with Tate, but Wikipedia express the text in a Neutral Point of View, and by the reliable sources in the article, Tate is misogynistic, but we should add the note because of the Wikipedia:Neutral point of view - Wikipedia. Gabriel Ziegler • 📄 • 📜

Gabriel Ziegler, I'd recommend you read WP:FALSEBALANCE, before proceeding with this discussion. What Wikipedia editors and readers think about the subject is mostly irrevelant, we report what reliable sources say about the subject (while always respecting the policies on biographies of living people). Consensus is that reliable sources consider Tate's views misogynistic, and that's a neutral point of view. Isabelle Belato ^🏳‍🌈 03:22, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

Is not a Neutral Point of View, the term is highly discussed, even here... So, it is a word for interpretation, so it is better to report that is disputed. It'd be better than just saying what the sources says (They are probably manipulated). Gabriel Ziegler • 📄 • 📜

Search for: "andrew tate" self described misogynist. Who are we to deny his own claim to fame?😉 -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 04:33, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

I have gone ahead and let him describe himself in the lead. It's hard for anyone to claim we are unfairly calling him a misogynist when he does it himself. See the edit summary. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 06:22, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

Very good !!! Thank you ! Gabriel Ziegler • 📄 • 📜 Gabriel Ziegler (talk) 06:43, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

Not bad! DFlhb (talk) 13:29, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

Can we change Andrew Tate's profile picture?

I think Andrew Tate's profile picture should be changed to the one of him handcuffed / in the police van?

I can provide both images if necessary? TessTickles1434 (talk) 15:15, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

TessTickles1434 This is an article, not a "profile". The top image should not be of him handcuffed, that is a severe neutral point of view issue that suggests he has been convicted of a crime- no different than a mugshot(see WP:MUGSHOT). An image of his arrest could be further down the article, if there is one compatible with Wikipedia's license. 331dot (talk) 15:29, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

He also is not primarily known for having been arrested or convicted of a crime. 331dot (talk) 15:30, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 3 January 2023 (3)

Other names: Top G, Cobra Tate. CobraAreku (talk) 15:38, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

 Not done Please provide sources that show these are names used to refer to Mr. Tate. 331dot (talk) 15:49, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

Possible Misplaced Source

In the article, it states that "[t]wo women were found" during the initial search of the subject's property in April. From a quick skim, I couldn't see where in the three sources listed (The Guardian, The Washington Post, and BuzzFeed News) that anyone was found at his properties during the search in April (although they do support the other information in that section). I think this might have been left over from an edit that used this source (an example page that retains this source is here). The Libertatea source seems to have been removed from the current version of the page, although I'm not sure why. Is there another source for who was found at his house in April so that we can add a citation here (assuming I didn't miss it in the existing sources), or if not, can we just add the Libertatea source back in to support that statement? IDontHaveAnAccountYet (talk) 06:57, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

The Libertatea citation was later changed to another article, which named one of the alleged victims, so I removed it in this diff; I thought this was supported by the other citations. Will bring back the older Libertatea link. DFlhb (talk) 08:55, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

Update: one problem is that the Libertatea citation I re-added says they were found in Tate's villa, when a recent The Times article clarifies they were found at the second property.[7] This is corroborated by numerous Romanian sites, which we can't cite due to their quality, but which also say they were in a different property.

The problem is that The Times only mentions the American woman, not both. I think we can remove the "other woman" detail, since it's now covered by the "6 women" mention in the next paragraph. I'm uncomfortable basing a detail on one Romanian source (Libertatea) which does things like naming alleged victims (highly unethical) in other articles; we could add the "second woman" detail back in when it's been corroborated by more reliable sources. DFlhb (talk) 09:42, 5 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)

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)

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)

Fight name

Pinging @RossButsy and @TatesTopG. Tate's fighting name was indeed "King Cobra", not "Cobra" (see [8] and [9] 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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Block-evading sock TatesTopG

The block-evading sock TatesTopG (talk · contribs) has made a number of edits to this page [10] [11] [12] [13] [14]. 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)

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)

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)

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.[15]

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)

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. [16]. 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)

Leaked texts?

I noticed we don't include any of the texts and voicemails leaked by Vice in Andrew Tate#2015 British investigation -- Should we? Here's a link to the article. The leaks included stuff like "I love raping you", "Are you seriously so offended I strangled you a little bit" and "Am I a bad person? Because the more you didn't like it, the more I enjoyed it. I fucking loved how much you hated it. It turned me on." I do think something about these texts should be included---these are incredibly shocking things to be saying---but I could get why people might be apprehensive if Vice is the source of the leaks. Endwise (talk) 02:50, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

Other sources also document some of this stuff, such as the "I loved raping you" one. Vice is okay, but adding other sources strengthens the case for inclusion. He is shockingly open about his views and actions: "He moved to Romania in 2017, saying he wanted to live in a country where “corruption is accessible for everybody” and police would be less likely to investigate sexual assault allegations."Forbes -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 02:56, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

The Insider source you linked above about the texts is still saying this is "According to Vice News", and I think the bit about why he moved to Romania is already in the article. I've added this to the "2015 British investigation" section:

On January 12, 2023, Vice News released text and voice messages allegedly sent by Tate to a third woman who had reported him to the police in 2014. The messages included statements such as "I love raping you" and "the more you didn't like it, the more I enjoyed it".[17]

Endwise (talk) 03:14, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

Don't believe the texts' contents are due; they were available to the police when making their determination (according to Vice), and were apparently provided to Vice by the third women, rather than by the police or an independent source. If people want more info on that, they can just read the news. DFlhb (talk) 11:09, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

RfC on British English

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Per WP:RFCBEFORE, please have an ordinary discussion on the talk page before opening an RFC, which will take at least 30 days to resolve. (Non-admin closure). Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 20:37, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

---

Should this article use British English? Asperthrow (talk) 15:39, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

Support - Tate began his television, business, and kickboxing careers in the UK. He consistently speaks in British English and was originally known only in the UK. Not to mention sources covering his December 2022 arrest describe him as a Briton or a British citizen. I see no reason why this article shouldn’t use it. Asperthrow (talk) 15:43, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

Support, as stated above, but why is an RFC needed? No one voiced opposition, and we're free to wait a few more days, and assume that a lack of "Oppose" votes means that editors have seen it, don't care, and that a switch can be done. DFlhb (talk) 16:29, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

To be quite honest it might not be; this article should indisputably be in BriEng. Just felt an RfC was the best thing to do. If nothing comes of it in maybe 3 days’ time, (given how high-profile this article is, that would be a lot of viewers and editors not voicing opposition) then an uncontroversial switch should be made. Asperthrow (talk) 19:14, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

Why would you start an RfC on this? Please read WP:RFCBEFORE. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 20:29, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Comic relief

This discussion is very much a frivolous one, but I hope it'll put a smile on your face and get your mind off the grim things we've been discussing so far:

Today, AP News, ABC News and a bunch of local outlets decided that a Romanian agency was named the "National Agency for the Administration of Unavailable Assets". Strange name, right? Turns out, "Unavailable" is what Google Translate spits out as a translation for "Indisponibilizate", when you use Chrome to translate Romanian news articles.

Their real English common name is the "National Agency for the Management of Seized Assets". That's per their website, the European Commission, the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime, the US State Department, the UK Government, and Freedom House.

What's this got to do with discussing improvements to this article? Only that if we name them, we should use their real name, not their WP:RSBREAKING rename! Frivolity over. DFlhb (talk) 22:03, 14 January 2023 (UTC)