Talk:Andrew Tate

Did you know nomination

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by Launchballer talk 09:22, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

(

• Comment or view
• Article history

)

Andrew Tate in 2023

• ... that social media personality Andrew Tate (pictured) was the third most 'googled' person in 2023? Source: [1]
  • ALT1: ... that one of the most-liked tweets of all time was Greta Thunberg's response to Andrew Tate (pictured) in December 2022? Source: [2]
  • ALT2: ... that counter-terror police have expressed concern over influencer Andrew Tate (pictured), due to an increase in cases related to incel culture? Source: [3]
  • Reviewed:
  • Comment: These is about as neutral as I can think of.

Improved to Good Article status by CommunityNotesContributor (talk). Self-nominated at 16:19, 10 March 2024 (UTC). Post-promotion hook changes for this nom will be logged at Template talk:Did you know nominations/Andrew Tate; consider watching this nomination, if it is successful, until the hook appears on the Main Page.

• Not a review, but this article might not be DYK material. (Primarily since our coverage is overwhelmingly negative) Sohom (talk) 16:24, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for your input. I've striked out ALT2, given it focuses on the negative. The other two hooks, specifically the first, I'd consider as neutral as they come. The coverage in the article is overwhelming negative due to RS, not due to contributors, with a lot of consideration for using NPOV language and attribution as per BLP policy, as well as including everything positive about Tate, or in defense of him. I'd argue this type of article would come under one of the goals of DYK: highlight the variety of information on Wikipedia, thereby providing an insight into the range of material that Wikipedia covers. If we are not including controversial topics, then we are not achieving this diversity. CommunityNotesContributor (talk) 17:31, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

We do feature negative hooks about certain things (Site isolation had a semi-negative hook, despite having a overwhelmingly positive reception). I'm not insinuating that NPOV was compromised when building the article eithier (in fact the article great considering how freaking controversial the subject is). I'm just unsure if running a negative article about a BLP is the best idea. In any case, I'll defer to a actual reviewer. Sohom (talk) 20:06, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

Again, appreciate the feedback. Just to clarify, we're not still talking about negative hooks are we? The hooks are currently neutral, if not positive. If the argument is along the lines of if Jimmy Savile were promoted to GA, and then nominated as a DYK, and that would be an issue, than I have no complaints. Simple as. CommunityNotesContributor (talk) 20:59, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

Exactly, that's my argument. The hooks look good from a neutrality POV (imo). Sohom (talk) 21:19, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

CommunityNotesContributor: I could do with you if I ever decide to GA Tate's Big Brother housemate Marco Pierre White Jr and try him on again here. I would just like to bring your attention to the bit of WP:DYKHOOK that says "Hooks that unduly focus on negative aspects of living persons should be avoided", emphasis mine. I see no reason why a rightfully negative article should not be promoted with a negative hook; we should not be providing WP:FALSEBALANCE. Out of interest, is there a reason you don't mention his appearance on Ultimate Traveller?--Launchballer 10:29, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

@CommunityNotesContributor: Please respond to the above. Z1720 (talk) 02:08, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

Probably because there doesn't appear to be a reliable source with coverage, all I could find was one line from Independent (via Yahoo) documenting this [4]. The show itself doesn't appear to be notable, based on the lack of Wikipedia page, though this minor detail could be added to BB section for example. CommunityNotesContributor (talk) 13:09, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

That's a shame. I saw that the non-RS Rolling Stone mentioned that he flounced out of it with an eye infection, and wondered if there was a hook in it. Full review needed.--Launchballer 13:17, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

Article passed a GA review and was nominated in the proper time frame. Hooks are neutral. Both hooks are verified to the cited sources and are of usable length. Article is in compliance with all wiki policies as one would expect from a GA article. There was some discussion on the DYK talk page in the transgender topic thread about the use of the image being not desirable. Based on those comments, I would say that we should pass on this pic given the distaste expressed by several editors who regularly contribute at DYK for featuring this particular article in the most prominent spot. I personally prefer Alt 1, but I leave it up to the promoter on which of the two hooks they prefer to promote. This one is ready to go.4meter4 (talk) 02:24, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

Ok let's go with ATL1 then with no image. Do you have a link to the discussion elsewhere? I didn't see it, as there are no issues raised with the picture on this template. CommunityNotesContributor (talk) 11:35, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

It's a very brief subthread of Wikipedia talk:Did you know#Do we have to keep doing this?; lucid Launchballer says this could swallow a wider hearing. Pinging Viriditas.--Launchballer 11:46, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for sharing. I don't think we should be making decisions on DYK templates based on obscured opinions made elsewhere, that sets a dangerous precedent and lacks transparency. The comment "although ALT1 takes him down a couple of pegs, so I'd be very happy for that to run" does raise an important point of NPOV in these hooks, and therefore I change my option to ATL0. Otherwise waiting for objection to use of picture that remains non-existent on this talk page. On a side note, it's a shame that there appears to be a "fear" of raising awareness over what I would broadly consider a "toxic influence" to young males. Notably the UK education system thought turning a blind eye to Tate's influence was also the solution,[5] but along with Australia,[6] have done a complete u-turn,[7] realising that ignoring the problem doesn't make it go away, and instead worsened the problem.[8]. Lessons could be learnt here... CommunityNotesContributor (talk) 14:34, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

That conversation was enough to make me uncomfortable in endorsing the pic. I stick by what I said. Alt1 is a perfectly good hook, and the original one is also fine. Either one could be promoted. I find the Alt1 hook better simply because it's more eye catching in my opinion and would make me want to read the article more so than the other hook. To me its more hooky for lack of a better word.4meter4 (talk) 14:46, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

OK, no issues with either hook being chosen, take your pick. The argument for it being a better hook I support, especially since it also links to Greta which is another GA, but not because it's considered a convenient POV. I think there needs to be a broader discussion over raising issues with DKY nominations outside of their templates though, either here or on the main talk page, as the implications over precedents being set and transparency remain concerning. CommunityNotesContributor (talk) 14:53, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

I should have pinged, my apologies. (Side note, shouldn't it be 'December 2022' response?)--Launchballer 14:57, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

OK thanks, let's leave it at that then, since this isn't being defended. I think "that one of the most-liked tweets of all time was ... in December 2022?" otherwise remains accurate, as this is the date when it became one of the most-liked tweets. CommunityNotesContributor (talk) 15:08, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

WP:DYKHOOKBLP ALT1 does not work, it is about a tweet from a third party and it is very depreciating and body shaming. We should not feature a "someone tweeted something embarrassing about someone else's penis" hook. Bruxton (talk) 14:54, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

I think the slang the kids use might be confusing you... The tweet was about their energy, not their penis (although there are humorous implication no penis is required to have big dick energy or small dick energy) Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:37, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

@Bruxton: see this article in The Independent[9]: "But don’t be fooled into thinking you actually need to have a large penis to have BDE - you don’t need to have one at all." Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:41, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

• With due apologies to the promoter, there is still some concerns over at WT:DYK if the article should have even been promoted yet. As such, the hook's been pulled from prep for now until a consensus either way forms. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 10:44, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

No problem, that was probably for the best. There's inherently an issue with DYKs when a negative hook can't be used for an article that's about an inherently negative person, even when NPOV is being respected. For example let's never raise awareness about Hitler or the holocaust because it's negative, let's focus on DKYs about rainbows and puppies instead. CommunityNotesContributor (talk) 11:04, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

ALT3: ...that social media influencer Andrew Tate described himself as "absolutely a misogynist"?

for ALT3. Valereee (talk) 23:37, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

• After WP:DYK discussion this seems like the best alternative - 2 weeks have passed since discussion. Recent GA, no plagiarism. The hook is interesting and cited in the article. The article appears to be fairly stable and uses the correct inline citations. It is likely as neutral as it can be. No QPQ is required. Bruxton (talk) 00:55, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

This should probably be added to T:TDYKA.--Launchballer 06:32, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

Inaccuracy with context

With the content in the article:

According to the Anti-Defamation League, Tate posted the following lesson to his TikTok account, for the appropriate response if a man is accused of cheating: It's bang out the machete, boom in her face, you grip her up by the neck, 'WHAT’S UP BITCH'...you go fuck her. That’s how it goes, you go slap, slap, grab, choke, 'shut up bitch,' sex

It's out of context and inaccurate, a full context video states what Tate would do if a woman threatens him with a Machete while accusing him of cheating https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8vYk0Qp1hX4 Mr Vili talk 06:52, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

While this isn't a reliable source, the BBC interview would be, where unless mistaken he provides the context to that quote [10]. Using Cite AV media this would be a reliable source (using the time parameter). From reading the report/article summarising that interview, there's definitely some responses from Tate that can be added to the article, so will work on that for now to provide more balance. Worth noting that ref is one of the few, if not only, interviews he's done with an RS recently that can be used to provide NPOV, even if a lot would be "Tate said he was being sarcastic" or "According to Tate this was taken out of context" or otherwise. CommunityNotesContributor (talk) 12:49, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

Judicial control

This is clearly a direct translation of the Romanian control judiciar, but it’s kind of meaningless in English. We should find a suitable equivalent. Maybe “court supervision”? There’s some discussion here. — Biruitorul ^Talk 09:06, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

Opening paragraph

Regarding changes per MOS:OPENPARABIO: The opening paragraph of a biographical article should neutrally describe the person, provide context, establish notability and explain why the person is notable, and reflect the balance of reliable sources. and MOS:OPEN: The first paragraph should define or identify the topic with a neutral point of view, but without being too specific. Naturally, the MOS:FIRST sentence does nothing to achieve this as an opening paragraph.

Hopefully we can all agree where the bulk of reliable sources comes from, it's undoubtedly regarding his social media presence, it's certainly not to do with his kickboxing career, Big Brother, or his online ventures, which gain passing mentions. The balance/difficulty here is being about to include his notability in a neutral manner, which is easier said than done, and should be achieved rather than abandoned.

Changes

• from His contentious commentary has resulted in expulsions from various social media platforms and concern from advocacy groups, parents, teachers, and counter-terrorism police. Surveys of British people have found that most respondents are aware of Tate, whose views are influential and popular mostly among young males.
• to His controversial commentary has resulted in his expulsions from various social media platforms and concern that he is encouraging misogynistic views among young men.

My concern with the change to the second sentence is POV and being too specific, hence the previous sentence was more vague and neutral (though could be better summarised). Likewise, the third sentence, helps provide the context of his notability. @Hemiauchenia in your edit you said "Tate is known worldwide, so it makes little sense to mention the UK exclusively here" [11], do you have a reliable source for this claim, or is this OR?

The context in that sentence he is British, and most British people have heard of him, as well as his influence. I haven't seen any surveys in other countries of his notability or influence, only UK based studies (that's half the section of Reception), so seems highly relevant for establishing notability in a neutral manner. Overall, I highly doubt he is very well known outside of the UK and US, and even in US I wouldn't be surprised to hear that most people have never heard of him, based on my research when creating the reception section.

I thought I'd bring this discussion to the talk page, as while I could of simply reverted your edits, given that reducing an OPEN to a FIRST is never an improvement, good faith edits are usually best discussed. CommunityNotesContributor (talk) 11:17, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

I think the "most googled person of 2023" covers the idea that Tate is "well-known" without being UK-centric, though I would be open to adding something back like "Tate is a well known figure in the UK". I have no love of Tate, but your original version of His contentious commentary has resulted in ... concern from advocacy groups, parents, teachers, and counter-terrorism police. is negative in a vague way that WP:BLP tells us to avoid. Reading the sources, it's pretty obvious the concern is primarily about misogyny, and that should be reflected in the lead. I would be fine with modifying the sentence to mention encouraging violence and sexual assault against women if the sources support that. I also don't object to you moving the sentence up into the opening paragraph. Hemiauchenia (talk) 18:19, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

OK, good to know. Yes the most googled reference is useful, even though it's not based on considerable number of RS, it does provide useful context of notability for the reader. It's true that the majority of references (stating concern over his social media presence and influence) is based on misogyny, nothing else, and maybe my attempt to sanitise this wasn't the right thing to do. As I said, with a figure like Tate, trying to provide context for notability, when the overwhelming notability from RS is negative, isn't easy to achieve based on a NPOV. I'll put a reference to UK notoriety back into the open, and see if anyone else has anything to say. Arguably also, "and concern that he is encouraging misogynistic views among young men" shouldn't be considered a POV, but more a matter of act. Especially given it casts doubt of whether he is encouraging misogyny, when in fact many RS state outright that he is. CommunityNotesContributor (talk) 19:18, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

Re: "encouraging violence and sexual assault against women", the sources do not support this. This is specifically related to accusations against the War Room group, not Tate himself directly. Hence it's covered in the lead's second paragraph when summarising his online ventures, as there is significant RS coverage of this. CommunityNotesContributor (talk) 19:33, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

To avoid leaving the following tag to this new line: Tate later used his audience from his online courses to propel himself to fame as an internet celebrity promoting a masculine, luxurious lifestyle.

Are there specific sources to support this claim? No offence, but to me it seems like OR, among other issues:

• He uses his online courses to increase his reach, RS doesn't state he gained fame from this, that's a leap
• "propel himself to fame" comes across as a strong use of WP:PUFFERY, without sources to back up such claims either
• Where are the sources that he is famous for promoting a masculine, luxurious lifestyle? The reference used in the body only states "popularity" from this, not fame, which is a completely different concept. Again, where is this referenced?

It's one of those lines in a lead which "sounds about right", but doesn't appear to be supported by RS, nor is a summary of the body. Let's remember that the lead is NOT a summary of Tate himself, but instead the summary of the article about him. CommunityNotesContributor (talk) 19:58, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

The luxurious part refers to this portion of the body Tate gained notoriety on social media for promoting a "hyper-masculine, ultra-luxurious lifestyle". which is cited to this BBC article [12]. The use of online courses refers to this part of the body Tate became highly prominent in 2022 by encouraging members of Hustler's University to post large numbers of videos of him to social media platforms in an effort to maximise engagement cited to this article in The Guardian [13] (full disclosure: I wrote this part of the body). I would be okay with "prominence" "widespread attention" etc if that's a better alternative. It's obvious looking at google trends he went from relatively unknown to well-known in 2022 [14], when he started to receive significant coverage by media publications, which is what I was getting at. Hemiauchenia (talk) 20:07, 15 March 2024 (UTC)