Talk:Andrew Tate
This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Andrew Tate article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11Auto-archiving period: 30 days |
Q1: Why was my edit reverted?
A1: Your edit was likely reverted by another editor for failing to adhere to Wikipedia's standards of quality as it applies to biographies of living persons. Edits that are not encyclopedic, neutral in phrasing, or constructive are subject to removal (see: WP:PILLARS). Q2: Andrew Tate goes by xe/xim pronouns. Why doesn't the article use them?
A2: Per MOS:GENDERID, articles use the pronouns found in the most recent reliable sources. While self-identification is usually sufficient for pronouns per WP:ABOUTSELF, there is serious doubt among editors that Andrew Tate's claims to prefer xe/xim or she/her pronouns are genuine. The self-identifcation is thus an exceptional claim and not, on its own, a reliable source. As of yet, no independent source refers to Tate using xe/xim or she/her pronouns. Q3: Why isn't Andrew Tate's conversion to Islam mentioned in the article?
A3: Andrew Tate's conversion to Islam is mentioned in the article under § Personal life. The "stance" parameter in the infobox does not refer to Tate's religious stance; rather, it refers to his boxing stance during his time as a kickboxer. He fought with an orthodox stance. |
The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information. |
This article is written in British English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, travelled, centre, defence, artefact, analyse) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus. |
Andrew Tate has been listed as one of the Media and drama good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it. Review: March 10, 2024. (Reviewed version). |
Warning: active arbitration remedies The contentious topics procedure applies to this article. This article is related to articles about living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles, which is a contentious topic. Furthermore, the following rules apply when editing this article:
Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page. |
This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page. |
This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This article has been viewed enough times in a single year to make it into the Top 50 Report annual list. This happened in 2022 and 2023. |
This article has been viewed enough times in a single week to appear in the Top 25 Report 14 times. The weeks in which this happened:
|
A fact from Andrew Tate appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 12 May 2024 (check views). The text of the entry was as follows:
|
Kickboxing
editHello I would like to add sourced information into his kickboxing career and record Alcapone211 (talk) 08:56, 1 November 2024 (UTC)
Separate article for Tristan Tate
editWhen searching Tristan Tate on Wikipedia it redirects to the article of Andrew Tate. But Tristan is a separate person and popular media influencer and deserves a separate article. In fact, a separate article for Tristan Tate is as important as Andrew Tate's article. So, let's make a separate article for Tristan Tate. AimanAbir18plus (talk) 19:56, 4 November 2024 (UTC)
- Tristan Tate article was deleted at AfD in March 2024, that's why there is no article. See talk. CNC (talk) 20:01, 4 November 2024 (UTC)
- Its an atypical close though, its extremely technical and does not preclude recreation with higher quality sources "This means we do not have the liberty to simply leave the offending page in place until better sources surface." Horse Eye's Back (talk) 20:06, 4 November 2024 (UTC)
- @Horse Eye's Back: the close came down to sources, which isn't particularly atypical especially for a BLP. Has better sourcing emerged since the AFD? My recollection at the time was there there were lots of trivial mentions but no depth of coverage in RS. VQuakr (talk) 20:44, 4 November 2024 (UTC)
- The close (according to the closer) came down to WP:PERP and WP:SUSPECT, the coverage of the various trials is in-depth coverage in RS but much of it falls within this special BLP protection. This was essentially a TNT close on BLP grounds, it was no consensus after all not not a consensus to delete. WP:PERP in particular indicates that we could make a subpage for the court cases without making one for Tristan Tate specifically, so there are a few options here... Not just a stand-alone Tristan Tate. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 20:49, 4 November 2024 (UTC)
- The close was definitively delete not no consensus. If no new, substantial sources are available since the closure then further discussion seems unnecessary. VQuakr (talk) 23:31, 4 November 2024 (UTC)
- This is the entirety of the close: "The result was delete. Once you discard the !votes not based on policy or guidelines, views seem evenly split between Keep and Delete. Normally, that would result in a No consensus close. But this isn't a normal situation, as we're dealing with a BLP that falls under the auspices of WP:PERP and WP:SUSPECT, as some here correctly noted. This means we do not have the liberty to simply leave the offending page in place until better sources surface. The deletion is without prejudice against turning the page into a redirect to Andrew Tate, the appropriateness of which can be reviewed at RfD if disputed." so you are clearly wrong. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 00:01, 5 November 2024 (UTC)
- That's a delete closure, like I said. Not a no consensus closure. So no, I don't see anything that would result in me being "clearly wrong". I also (still) haven't seen any sources presented that would alter the outcome of that discussion. VQuakr (talk) 03:38, 5 November 2024 (UTC)
- "Normally, that would result in a No consensus close. But this isn't a normal situation" and you don't seem to have offered an opinion on the options offered by the BLP page even through the closer mentions them explicitly, are we not supposed to follow WP:PERP and WP:SUSPECT? You also appear to have been involved in the close, so you lack the objectivity to evaluate it... I don't. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:16, 5 November 2024 (UTC)
- Ok, so we now agree this was closed as delete, good. I was not involved in the close. I was involved in the discussion. Not that it matters. Anyways, since you're unable/unwilling to provide sources this appears to be a dead issue. VQuakr (talk) 18:40, 5 November 2024 (UTC)
- If you contributed to the discussion then you are involved in the close, you appear to lack the objectivity to evaluate it which is why you are now attacking me. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:18, 6 November 2024 (UTC)
- That's not what "involved in the close" means. You don't get to choose who participates in a discussion. No one is "attacking" you. VQuakr (talk) 21:03, 6 November 2024 (UTC)
- Theres an awful lot of aggression being directed my way by you if you do not mean to be attacking me. You've made this extremely personal and haven't actualy addressed policy or guideline here unless I'm missing something. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 21:05, 6 November 2024 (UTC)
- No, there isn't. If you have behavioral concerns move to my talk page, please, rather than distracting from my policy-based concerns that have been ignored thus far. VQuakr (talk) 21:23, 6 November 2024 (UTC)
- What policy based concerns have you raised which have been ignored? I will address them as best as I am able. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 21:26, 6 November 2024 (UTC)
- For the 4th time: sources. VQuakr (talk) 21:32, 6 November 2024 (UTC)
- We aren't lacking significant coverage, remember that all the stuff about the civil cases counts... Its only the criminal case coverage which doesn't. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 21:34, 6 November 2024 (UTC)
- Can we get specific please? What specific secondary sources discuss Tristan Tate in depth and have come out since the last AFD, that might indicate that the subject now merits a stand-alone article? VQuakr (talk) 21:41, 6 November 2024 (UTC)
- Why would they have needed to come out since the last AFD? It wasn't deleted for lack of coverage last time, it was deleted on a technicality. There is no consensus that the topic lacks the necessary coverage to be notable which would need to be overcome. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 21:49, 6 November 2024 (UTC)
- Huh? BLP is a core content policy not a technicality. If there are no new sources since last time, then it's logical to assume that there still isn't adequate sourcing for a stand-alone article. VQuakr (talk) 22:32, 6 November 2024 (UTC)
- There was never a consensus that there wasn't adequate sourcing for a stand-alone article. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 22:33, 6 November 2024 (UTC)
- Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tristan Tate (2nd nomination). VQuakr (talk) 22:39, 6 November 2024 (UTC)
- You're welcome to quote where you see that consensus in the closing statement, I don't. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 22:42, 6 November 2024 (UTC)
- Yes. Most of the people voted to keep the article of Tristan Tate in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tristan Tate (2nd nomination). Still it was deleted. It seems undemocratic. Instead of deletion it could be sent to draft for further improvement. Tristan Tate is a notable online personality (social media influencer) along with his brother Tristan Tate. AimanAbir18plus (talk) 13:55, 7 November 2024 (UTC)
- You're welcome to quote where you see that consensus in the closing statement, I don't. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 22:42, 6 November 2024 (UTC)
- Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tristan Tate (2nd nomination). VQuakr (talk) 22:39, 6 November 2024 (UTC)
- There was never a consensus that there wasn't adequate sourcing for a stand-alone article. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 22:33, 6 November 2024 (UTC)
- Huh? BLP is a core content policy not a technicality. If there are no new sources since last time, then it's logical to assume that there still isn't adequate sourcing for a stand-alone article. VQuakr (talk) 22:32, 6 November 2024 (UTC)
- Why would they have needed to come out since the last AFD? It wasn't deleted for lack of coverage last time, it was deleted on a technicality. There is no consensus that the topic lacks the necessary coverage to be notable which would need to be overcome. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 21:49, 6 November 2024 (UTC)
- Can we get specific please? What specific secondary sources discuss Tristan Tate in depth and have come out since the last AFD, that might indicate that the subject now merits a stand-alone article? VQuakr (talk) 21:41, 6 November 2024 (UTC)
- We aren't lacking significant coverage, remember that all the stuff about the civil cases counts... Its only the criminal case coverage which doesn't. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 21:34, 6 November 2024 (UTC)
- For the 4th time: sources. VQuakr (talk) 21:32, 6 November 2024 (UTC)
- What policy based concerns have you raised which have been ignored? I will address them as best as I am able. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 21:26, 6 November 2024 (UTC)
- No, there isn't. If you have behavioral concerns move to my talk page, please, rather than distracting from my policy-based concerns that have been ignored thus far. VQuakr (talk) 21:23, 6 November 2024 (UTC)
- Theres an awful lot of aggression being directed my way by you if you do not mean to be attacking me. You've made this extremely personal and haven't actualy addressed policy or guideline here unless I'm missing something. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 21:05, 6 November 2024 (UTC)
- That's not what "involved in the close" means. You don't get to choose who participates in a discussion. No one is "attacking" you. VQuakr (talk) 21:03, 6 November 2024 (UTC)
- If you contributed to the discussion then you are involved in the close, you appear to lack the objectivity to evaluate it which is why you are now attacking me. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:18, 6 November 2024 (UTC)
- Ok, so we now agree this was closed as delete, good. I was not involved in the close. I was involved in the discussion. Not that it matters. Anyways, since you're unable/unwilling to provide sources this appears to be a dead issue. VQuakr (talk) 18:40, 5 November 2024 (UTC)
- "Normally, that would result in a No consensus close. But this isn't a normal situation" and you don't seem to have offered an opinion on the options offered by the BLP page even through the closer mentions them explicitly, are we not supposed to follow WP:PERP and WP:SUSPECT? You also appear to have been involved in the close, so you lack the objectivity to evaluate it... I don't. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:16, 5 November 2024 (UTC)
- That's a delete closure, like I said. Not a no consensus closure. So no, I don't see anything that would result in me being "clearly wrong". I also (still) haven't seen any sources presented that would alter the outcome of that discussion. VQuakr (talk) 03:38, 5 November 2024 (UTC)
- This is the entirety of the close: "The result was delete. Once you discard the !votes not based on policy or guidelines, views seem evenly split between Keep and Delete. Normally, that would result in a No consensus close. But this isn't a normal situation, as we're dealing with a BLP that falls under the auspices of WP:PERP and WP:SUSPECT, as some here correctly noted. This means we do not have the liberty to simply leave the offending page in place until better sources surface. The deletion is without prejudice against turning the page into a redirect to Andrew Tate, the appropriateness of which can be reviewed at RfD if disputed." so you are clearly wrong. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 00:01, 5 November 2024 (UTC)
- The close was definitively delete not no consensus. If no new, substantial sources are available since the closure then further discussion seems unnecessary. VQuakr (talk) 23:31, 4 November 2024 (UTC)
- The close (according to the closer) came down to WP:PERP and WP:SUSPECT, the coverage of the various trials is in-depth coverage in RS but much of it falls within this special BLP protection. This was essentially a TNT close on BLP grounds, it was no consensus after all not not a consensus to delete. WP:PERP in particular indicates that we could make a subpage for the court cases without making one for Tristan Tate specifically, so there are a few options here... Not just a stand-alone Tristan Tate. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 20:49, 4 November 2024 (UTC)
- Take it to the talk page, that's what it's there for. There is even a source list to work on, ie feel free to edit just leave a signature if you do. That's why I archived the discussion initially, as it has nothing directly to do with this page. CNC (talk) 11:52, 5 November 2024 (UTC)
- Given that we're discussing either a joint page for the brothers or breaking off the joint legal problems into their own article this is the right talk page. Please stop making these bold moves which you should know will be objected to. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:19, 5 November 2024 (UTC)
- @Horse Eye's Back: the close came down to sources, which isn't particularly atypical especially for a BLP. Has better sourcing emerged since the AFD? My recollection at the time was there there were lots of trivial mentions but no depth of coverage in RS. VQuakr (talk) 20:44, 4 November 2024 (UTC)
- Its an atypical close though, its extremely technical and does not preclude recreation with higher quality sources "This means we do not have the liberty to simply leave the offending page in place until better sources surface." Horse Eye's Back (talk) 20:06, 4 November 2024 (UTC)
- My first thought was that the other Tate brother's notability was entirely dependent on this one's... But from a quick google I think that they almost certainly are notable, much of the coverage of the two does treat them as an item ("the Tates" "the Tate brothers" etc) so the two ways I can see us going with this are deciding that they're best covered together on a joint Tate brothers page (which this more or less currently is) or making a main page for each brother and a combined one for the combined legal issues. Due to the immense amount of coverage we have I would have a hard time arguing that multiple pages aren't due. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 20:06, 4 November 2024 (UTC)