Jump to content

Talk:Andrew Tate

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Hipocrite (talk | contribs) at 22:24, 29 December 2022 (→‎Andrew Tate raid: Better). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.


ISIS

This discussion is about this edit (and this previous edit)

After the edit from two days ago, I searched for the original source. Here it is; it's from 2018, and here's a partial transcript:

I'm an atheist. [...] Religious people are the biggest hypocrits on the fucking planet because religious people don't read their own religious books. Every Christian I've argued with, I start busting out quotes from the Bible, and they go: "That's not in the Bible" Yeah it is. [...] You cannot be a Christian and ignore your own book. You either have two choices: you're either an absolute hypocrite, by either pretending you're a Christian and ignoring your own book, or you're a feral psychopath. There is no other way to be religious. It makes me laugh when ISIS was around, people say: "ISIS aren't real Muslims". No, ISIS are the real Muslims, because ISIS do exactly what the book says, which is kill everyone who's not a Muslim and chop people's heads off and set them on fire, and be fucking raging lunatics. But all the other Muslims go "They're not real Muslims, because I'm a Muslim because I read the book and ignore those parts". Well then you're not a fucking Muslim because you're ignoring the fucking book. [...] Christians are exactly the same. Every Christian, I say: "When you walk into a store on a Sunday, and someone is working on God's day, they should be put to death. Do you murder them?" "Well, no." [...] If not you're not a fucking Christian are you, you moron. [...] So religious people are hypocrites, or psychopaths. That's the only two choices. There is no other option.

This is basically "spicy Richard Dawkins". (BTW, according to MEMRI, that Telegram post by the ISIS propagandists got... 6 views.) I don't think it's due or would be considered encyclopedically relevant, and if we include it, we risk significantly misrepresenting it as a recent claim, or as an endorsement of ISIS (rather than a criticism of religion) which would benefit ISIS more than it would benefit Wikipedia. DFlhb (talk) 11:26, 15 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Besides, he was recently (Dec. 20) interviewed by Piers Morgan and said during the show that he regretted his ISIS comments, and that they were made because he didn't understand religion, in his words. So it would be redundant now to include these comments only to say that he no longer believes them, unless the comments become the source of significant backlash covered in reliable sources. Askarion ✉ 14:44, 22 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Tate is British, opening of lead should reflect this

Tate is a British citizen via his mother and considers himself British.[1] 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Controversies

For this article to be unbiased and true, there should also be a section for controversies surrounding Andrew Tate's career as an social media influencer MrBanana1234 (talk) 19:15, 26 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

MrBanana1234 Wikipedia does not claim to be unbiased and true. Please see WP:TRUTH. Everyone has biases, sources are present to readers so they can evaluate and judge them for themselves in determining what to think.
"Controversy" sections aren't prohibited, but have to be carefully done to maintain a neutral point of view. If you have independent reliable sources with information that is missing from this article, please offer your proposed additions here. 331dot (talk) 22:32, 26 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

He’s controversial, sure. And he’s also pretty cowardly. But I don’t see how this kind of thing can be included without source material. Otherwise we’re violating Wikipedia’s rule against original research. Darkprincealain (talk) 18:35, 28 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Typo

The second paragraph of the section labeled Social media presence says "onlinr" Elderlystrawberry (talk) 13:55, 27 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

 Fixed ■ ∃ Madeline ⇔ ∃ Part of me ; 14:06, 27 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 29 December 2022

In December 2022 Tate was publicly rattled and unnerved by Climate Activist Greta Thunberg's response to his tweet. He posted over 8 tweets to her 1. Tate appears to have taken the tweet to heart, even responding with a "How dare you?!" 2601:204:CA00:7985:8971:6E38:C00D:A134 (talk) 05:52, 29 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: See WP:INDISCRIMINATE. This seems incredibly trivial and you would need some good RS commenting on this to show notability. Cannolis (talk) 06:21, 29 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Here's a partial list of references in mass media. https://duckduckgo.com/?t=ffsb&q=andrew+tate+greta+thunberg&atb=v343-1&iar=news&ia=news JQ (talk) 06:32, 29 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
agree, widely reported. eg https://www.independent.co.uk/climate-change/news/greta-thunberg-andrew-tate-twitter-b2252757.html
https://www.rollingstone.com/culture/culture-news/greta-thunberg-andrew-tate-twitter-takedown-1234653407/ 2A00:23C6:B387:1F01:C1F6:9DAC:8E9D:F1B9 (talk) 10:18, 29 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This has been in the article since yesterday, before your request. DFlhb (talk) 11:02, 29 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 29 December 2022 (2)

- 79.116.194.130 (talk) 15:27, 29 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Done, in a sense. No edit was requested. —C.Fred (talk) 15:29, 29 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
Agree with Smallchief; it's due. DFlhb (talk) 17:12, 29 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
It's NOTNEWS and I just removed it. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:19, 29 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
And it was restored. Smallchief, where's the WP:LASTING impact of a Twitter dunk? – Muboshgu (talk) 21:36, 29 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 29 December 2022 (3)

The section about the Thunberg tweet exchange needs improvement in tone, I would suggest changing the present

Unbanned, in December 2022 Tate trolled environmentalist Greta Thunberg with a tweet extolling his carbon-emitting automobiles and asking for her e-mail address to give her more information. She tweeted back that he could "enlighten" her at "[email protected]."[51]

To

After being unbanned in 2022, Tate posted a tweet in which he tagged Greta Thunberg asking for her email address so he "could send a complete list of my car collection and their respective enormous emissions". Thunberg replied with "yes, please do enlighten me. email me at [email protected]". As of December 29 2022, the tweet by Tate has 193 000 likes, and the tweet by Thunberg has 2,8 million likes, making it the 22nd most liked tweet of all time.[52]

The last line is optional. Erbeilas (talk) 22:09, 29 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew Tate raid

I was writing this before I noticed I couldn't edit. Would appreciate if someone edited the section.

"In December 29, 2022, Andrew Tate and his brother Tristan were the subject of a raid by the Romanian Directorate for Investigating Organized Crime and Terrorism (DIICOT). The raid was conducted at their luxury villa in Pipera, Romania, and was in relation to the alleged abduction of two girls. The authorities reportedly focused attention on a number of luxury vehicles at the residence, and a police trailer was on-site, possibly to uplift one or multiple vehicles. The home of a former policewoman was also raided in connection to the investigation.

The brothers were detained for 24 hours, and the DIICOT prosecutors searched their luxury cars. Andrew and Tristan had previously been questioned by DIICOT in April 2022, in relation to the same incident. At the time, Andrew Tate stated that the issues arose from a swatting incident." Crannofonix (talk) 22:10, 29 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This is definitely due, but we first need a reliable source. DFlhb (talk) 22:21, 29 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I think this might be reliable - working on better - https://www.libertatea.ro/stiri/surse-perchezitii-diicot-tristan-tate-andrew-tate-sechestrare-fete-tristan-tate-bianca-dragusanu-4394856/amp Hipocrite (talk) 22:22, 29 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Probably better - this looks to be CNN related? https://www.antena3.ro/actualitate/fratii-tate-perchezitii-vila-lux-tristan-cobra-661477.html Hipocrite (talk) 22:24, 29 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Andrew_Tate&oldid=1130382776"