Talk:Andrew Tate/Archive 2

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 24 August 2022
Tate recently made a video saying he will be leaving social media and focusing on charity FlyersFan1969 (talk) 00:15, 24 August 2022 (UTC)


 * Not Done Yet I see the video, it's an hour long. I'm sure reliable sources will be covering it soon. Feel free to reopen this when it's covered in third party sources, I'll add it. FrederalBacon (talk) 00:18, 24 August 2022 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 24 August 2022 (2)
Andrew Tate is a supporter of the Republican party so Republican party should be added to his page. Rasmus1234551 (talk) 10:30, 24 August 2022 (UTC)


 * ❌: Please provide a reliable source for this information and explain how it should be incorporated into the article. Throast  { { ping }} me! (talk &#124; contribs) 10:44, 24 August 2022 (UTC)

rape charges
tate has commented on these charges, maybe this section should be expanded 216.164.249.213 (talk) 08:26, 17 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Where has he commented? --Gilgul Kaful (talk) 09:03, 17 August 2022 (UTC)
 * ✅ per WP:BALANCE. The Guardian article mentions that he denied wrongdoing after being questioned by police. Throast  { { ping }} me! (talk &#124; contribs) 09:08, 17 August 2022 (UTC)
 * This is a good start but he has commented in quite a lot of detail. Surely there is a source that describes his denial in a bit more elaboration? 216.164.249.213 (talk) 12:37, 18 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Per WP:BALANCE, we should generally draw from independent secondary or tertiary sources, not from primary sources like article subjects themselves. If you can find a reliable source that discusses his commentary on the investigation, you can request to include it. Throast  { { ping }} me! (talk &#124; contribs) 15:20, 18 August 2022 (UTC)
 * You can now find a good denial of all charges on his website freetopg.com where he goes in depth about the charges raised against him. Samdavidhiorns (talk) 16:02, 24 August 2022 (UTC)
 * You apparently did not read my response above. Throast  { { ping }} me! (talk &#124; contribs) 16:22, 24 August 2022 (UTC)

Remove Unfounded Accusations / NPOV
Andrew Tate very recently released a "Final Statement" which included effectively debunking several claims on this page, including the sexual trafficking claim which is directly disputed with evidence. I think a need for more basis to claims like "misogynistic" is necessary, too. One citation which claims Tate said he 'moved to Romania for lax rape law enforcement' has no actual clips of him saying it. There's not even a single person who has ever actually came out directly accusing Tate of wrongdoing, and he's never been charged with a crime.

In essence: more care needs to be taken as to what is documented imo. Many lines read, to me, as definitely not from a NPOV. 2603:9000:8200:8957:5C85:5287:4A74:4E9C (talk) 02:44, 24 August 2022 (UTC)


 * We do not remove negative content simply because it is negative, and we do not remove negative content because the subject denies it. Reliable sources will cover the video, but it doesn't make the investigations disappear. FrederalBacon (talk) 02:50, 24 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Tate is not an independent source on himself. He would say that, wouldn't he? Dronebogus (talk) 02:51, 24 August 2022 (UTC)
 * I agree. Tate has denied the allegations made against him, and so while it should be made clear that investigations were made, it should also be made obvious that he has explicitly stated that these investigations were unsubstantiated, and to cite from where. People use these articles to find out more, and so they should be able to see Andrew's side of the story via a link to his video in the references in my opinion. Samdavidhiorns (talk) 16:10, 24 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia generally relies on secondary sources that are independent of the article subject in order to achieve the most neutral representation of viewpoints possible. An article about oneself isn't necessarily a good thing, and we do not use Wikipedia to amplify a subject's POV. Throast  { { ping }} me! (talk &#124; contribs) 16:28, 24 August 2022 (UTC)

"allegedly misogynistic"
Should it really be allegedly? I understand Wikipedia wants to be as objective as possible and not start controversy but this isn't the hill to die on. There's no "allegedly" when you say yourself women are property. Leid Elend (talk) 00:34, 21 August 2022 (UTC)


 * I mean, you're not wrong. It isn't allegedly, the views are misogynistic. I'm not sure what to do with this. I would support removing the allegedly, should BLP guidelines and sourcing allow it. FrederalBacon (talk) 00:40, 21 August 2022 (UTC)
 * I've rephrased the sentence to say "described as" rather than allegedly  Iamreallygoodatcheckerst@lk 00:51, 21 August 2022 (UTC)


 * I agree, nobody "alleges" that his commentary is misogynistic. Sources present it as fact. Throast  { { ping }} me! (talk &#124; contribs) 00:51, 21 August 2022 (UTC)
 * The source is quoted as calling his views "Extremely Misogynistic". I think that would be a better descriptor for the lede too. FrederalBacon (talk) 01:10, 21 August 2022 (UTC)
 * In my opinion, the lede should simply call Tate's remarks misogynistic without qualifiers such as "allegedly" or "described as." No reliable secondary sources as far as I am aware dispute the characterization of his commentary as misogynistic. As a point of reference, see Gamergate's article, which plainly calls the article's subject misogynistic in accordance with reliable secondary sources. CJ-Moki (talk) 01:52, 21 August 2022 (UTC)
 * I would agree, to a certain extent. I think calling him misogynistic in wikivoice in the lede requires a high quality source, as someone is likely to challenge that. Do we have a high quality source calling him misogynistic, not editorialized? We have a non profit that is cited as describing him as "extremely misogynistic." Do we call his views a such in the lede, using that as a source? FrederalBacon (talk) 02:03, 21 August 2022 (UTC)
 * I've found this NPR article. From my brief review of sourcing I don't think it would be appropriate to say this in WP:WIKIVOICE. This Guardian reference seems to attribute descriptions of misogyny rather than outright say it. When it comes to BLP's, it's best to err on the side of caution.  Iamreallygoodatcheckerst@lk 02:07, 21 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Another Guardian piece describes at least some of Tate's views as "misogynistic" in its own voice. Ditto for Buzzfeed News. NBC News says he has "hyper-misogynistic stances". My bar's pretty high for wikivoice claims like this, but I'd say we're close to it. I think the move from "allegedly" to "described as" was a good one, and I'm comfortable parked here for a bit. More sourcing seems to be rolling in still. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 02:15, 21 August 2022 (UTC)
 * I would agree that we're close to the wiki voice bar, but it's best to just wait a minute and see what RS continues to say.  Iamreallygoodatcheckerst@lk 02:16, 21 August 2022 (UTC)
 * I'd argue that due to the bias of the Guardian they would say that; therefore it is not a reliable source to quote. Samdavidhiorns (talk) 16:01, 24 August 2022 (UTC)
 * In terms of BLPs, I would agree. If we can't find multiple non-editorialized, high quality sources calling him that, we can't call him that in wikivoice. But given there are a wide variety of reliable sources who have given that view, maybe "widely described as misogynistic"? FrederalBacon (talk) 02:17, 21 August 2022 (UTC)
 * A recent Washington Post article quotes him as calling himself "absolutely a misogynist", so I don't see any reason why wikivoice shouldn't plainly refer to his stamements as misogynistic in the lead. Throast  { { ping }} me! (talk &#124; contribs) 11:33, 22 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Australian Broadcasting Corporation is now using "extremely misogynistic comments". Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 18:21, 22 August 2022 (UTC)
 * At what point do we reach the bar of plainly describing his remarks as misogynistic in wikivoice, especially now that we have multiple sources calling them "extremely misogynistic?" CJ-Moki (talk) 19:21, 22 August 2022 (UTC)
 * We've reached it imo. Everyone involved in this discussion except has weighed in, so I guess we should wait until he does. Throast  {  { ping }} me! (talk &#124; contribs) 19:52, 22 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Do you believe we have reached the bar to plainly call Tate's remarks misogynistic in wikivoice? CJ-Moki (talk) 20:33, 22 August 2022 (UTC)
 * I weighed in down below, we have a source where he calls himself as such. I think we're there. FrederalBacon (talk) 19:54, 22 August 2022 (UTC)
 * With BLPs, it can be especially tricky because of libel, but at this point, we have six sources, in this thread alone, that refer to his comments as misogynist in their own voices, and even the subject of the article himself agreeing as much. It's tricky, but I think the most helpful question to ask is, would the average person, at any age and in any culture, agree that Tate's comments, objectively, promote a negative or depreciative view of women? For now, I'd settle for using "widely described as" in the lead. Askarion   ✉  20:38, 22 August 2022 (UTC)
 * average person, at any age and in any culture, agree that Tate's comments, objectively, promote a negative or depreciative view of women I disagree, that's not what we have to ask. We have to ask "Do we have enough high quality reliable sources for the WP:EXCEPTIONAL change to calling his views misogynist in wikivoice?"I would argue that whereas editors were close to that bar just yesterday, perhaps the source where the subject calls himself as such that is now located would put it over that bar. FrederalBacon (talk) 20:49, 22 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Agreed - it was only twenty minutes ago, but I have no idea what I was thinking when I said that. Askarion   ✉  20:54, 22 August 2022 (UTC)
 * As someone who regularly says things and goes "Wait, why did I say that?", no big. FrederalBacon (talk) 22:29, 22 August 2022 (UTC)
 * I have to disagree there. An estimation of what people could possibly think generally is not our standard for inclusion, reliable sources are. There is not a single source I know of that objects to the "misogynist" characterization and even the article subject (!) agrees with this characterization. I really think we're being unduly cautious if we left it at anything but a statement of fact. Throast  { { ping }} me! (talk &#124; contribs) 21:00, 22 August 2022 (UTC)
 * I know I'm not a regular here, but I have to chime in. This is an example of unsupported dependent sourcing of content. One organization is content sourced for an article or articles (not necessarily referenced) which in turn are then used as content sources, all of which then are then used to supposedly prove a concept. At some point something needs to justify the terminology used. Unfortunately, with this particular case you are likely not going to find any primary source that justifies the term "misogynistic" (without quotes) without that source having already been deemed biased. For instance, look at the Newsweek article on why Tate was removed from Meta. The article states, "Tate has been making headlines and is widely known on social media for his controversial ideas, which have often been labeled as 'dangerous' and 'misogynistic.'" There's no reference or justification for the statement. It's just a repeated set of words that has the "everyone knows" sort of mentality to it. Any "high quality" sources are going to be the same because it's all dependent on someone's opinion. So, put some stupid quotes around it and provide references (so you can secure Wikipedia as part of the circular referencing), or do better than the media and actually write something that supplies facts.
 * Here's what I would suggest as a rewrite regarding that last sentence: "Tate was banned from Twitter, Facebook, Instagram, YouTube, and TikTok after pressure from domestic abuse charities called for his removal over 'misogynistic' content". And then add the references, which are oddly hard to find considering how many articles state that they exist.
 * Also, this supposed "self-described" argument and the article that it depends on appears to be complete BS, and needs to be removed from the sources as such. Nowhere in the article does it actually quote him calling himself a "misogynist". Poor reporting of that ilk (not a first for the Post) should really degrade (or, at least, make one question) that "high quality" statement over time, shouldn't it?
 * And though I shouldn't have to say this, I don't support this guy. I think he has a screw loose and is spewing more harm than good. However, that doesn't justify being lazy in providing objective citations or denotations. Ceegh (talk) 20:31, 24 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Several sources, some of them cited above, do not use quotations when describing Tate as misogynistic and base this on his comments about women. The WaPo article states as follows: He has said he would attack a woman who accused him of cheating and described himself as 'absolutely a misogynist.' Here is the primary source, Tate himself, for you to verify.
 * Your claim that his social media bans were the direct result of pressure exerted by abuse charities is unsubstantiated, both by the article and by sources. Throast  { { ping }} me! (talk &#124; contribs) 20:56, 24 August 2022 (UTC)
 * We don't have to worry about whether or not to call the subject a misogynist in Wikivoice when the subject calls himself one and it gets coverage in third party sources. I for one would be down to change it to Tate describes himself as "absolutely sexist" and "absolutely a misogynist", since that is more accurate, and is literally what the subject himself said, but I'm not sure the sexist line has been covered in third party. FrederalBacon (talk) 21:35, 24 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Change what exactly? The lead? I don't see how that would be an improvement over how it's written currently. If at all, these quotes would be better placed in the "social media impact" section imo. Throast <sup style="font-size:.7em; line-height:1.5em;"> { { ping }} me! (talk &#124; contribs) 21:42, 24 August 2022 (UTC)
 * I think the lede could use a bit of expansion, there isn't much information between when his kickboxing career ended and when this whole thing started. There would be place for stuff like that there, potentially.
 * Until the lede is expanded (if it even is, no one may agree with me on this), I would support referencing misogyny in the lede. It's been questioned frequently here, I think we should add the WaPo article ref you put above. FrederalBacon (talk) 22:03, 24 August 2022 (UTC)
 * I've added three sources to the lead that describe Tate's comments as misogynistic in their own words here. That should be enough to justify wikivoice for now. Throast <sup style="font-size:.7em; line-height:1.5em;"> { { ping }} me! (talk &#124; contribs) 22:23, 24 August 2022 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 25 August 2022
Change “young directionless men” to “British Muslims” since that is all the source substantiates. 2603:3001:10A:B500:29AB:50AC:C2AD:EC64 (talk) 13:22, 25 August 2022 (UTC)


 * ❌: The source says: Almost overnight, Tate has become a cult-like figure to young men and boys across many English-speaking countries. Further down, it says: Worryingly, Tate appears to be the latest avatar of the internet pipeline that takes young directionless men from videos on life and male development to arriving at the conclusion that feminism is to blame for a lot in life. The author talks about Tate generally in about the first third of the article and only goes into the British-Muslim distinction later in the article. Throast <sup style="font-size:.7em; line-height:1.5em;"> { { ping }} me! (talk &#124; contribs) 13:47, 25 August 2022 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 24 August 2022 (3)
I request that in the intro, mention of him being a “misogynist” is removed as this is purely opinion. 2001:48F8:7054:1038:DD47:66E5:842C:2FA5 (talk) 21:02, 24 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the template. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 21:06, 24 August 2022 (UTC)
 * You can refer to the above discussion under the thread "allegedly misogynistic" for context on why this change was made. As the above reply says, if you can establish a consensus otherwise, we can discuss changing it back. Askarion   ✉  16:27, 25 August 2022 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 25 August 2022 (2)
2A02:214C:8802:5400:C5B4:6E8C:D0E5:1A01 (talk) 18:02, 25 August 2022 (UTC)andrew tate was not a misogynist. Out of context tik tok made him seem like a bad guy you should really watch his podcasts and then form a final opinion. you should have a spherical point of view.
 * Red question icon with gradient background.svg 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. ― <b style="background:#0d1125;color:#51aeff;padding:1q;border-radius:5q;">Blaze Wolf</b>Talk<sub title="Discord Username" style="margin-left:-22q;">Blaze Wolf#6545 18:03, 25 August 2022 (UTC)

Andrew Tates Birth
Andrew Tates birth records shows him born in Washington D.C and he has stated that he was born in Washington D.C https://www.tiktok.com/@lightofday0/video/7119440491212524805?is_copy_url=1&is_from_webapp=v1&q=where%20was%20andrew%20tate%20born&t=1661521909631 this is a tiktok of his deleted video "The worst things about being rich" full video here https://odysee.com/@tatespeech:c/the-worst-things-about-being-rich:7 Antoniogago l (talk) 13:56, 26 August 2022 (UTC)


 * We can't use some random TikTok repost as WP:ABOUTSELF. The same applies to public birth records, WP:BLPPRIMARY. However, his own website, which is currently cited for his POB, states that he's "from" Chicago, which doesn't necessarily mean that he was born there. I will go ahead and change that. Throast <sup style="font-size:.7em; line-height:1.5em;"> { { ping }} me! (talk &#124; contribs) 14:06, 26 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Interestingly enough, this salon article refers to him as "British-born." This newsweek article clearly says born in Chicago, but we all know about newsweeks reliability. So who knows where he was really born? FrederalBacon (talk) 17:47, 26 August 2022 (UTC)
 * If there's a video out there that was uploaded via one of Tate's verified channels/accounts (or perhaps via a channel that he was interviewed on), we can use that as a self-published source as a source on himself. I don't see any indication that this channel on Odysee called "TateSpeech" is an official channel of his, so I wouldn't use any videos posted there. Throast <sup style="font-size:.7em; line-height:1.5em;"> { { ping }} me! (talk &#124; contribs) 18:25, 26 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Andrew Tate uploaded that video on his official YouTube channel "Tatespeech" which has been banned recently. Antoniogago l (talk) 23:35, 26 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Do you have the original YouTube video URL by chance? That way, we could check if it has been archived. Throast <sup style="font-size:.7em; line-height:1.5em;"> { { ping }} me! (talk &#124; contribs) 23:50, 26 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Never mind, I found it. Do you have the timestamp where he states his POB? I don't feel like watching it all the way through. Throast <sup style="font-size:.7em; line-height:1.5em;"> { { ping }} me! (talk &#124; contribs) 00:01, 27 August 2022 (UTC)
 * 0:35 he states he was born in Washington D.C Antoniogago l (talk) 00:11, 27 August 2022 (UTC)
 * ✅ Throast <sup style="font-size:.7em; line-height:1.5em;"> { { ping }} me! (talk &#124; contribs) 01:23, 27 August 2022 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 26 August 2022
andrew tate is not 6,1 that is wrong, hes 6,3. change 6ft 1in to 6ft 3in. Turtlepp934 (talk) 05:08, 26 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Not Done Sherdog disagrees. FrederalBacon (talk) 05:10, 26 August 2022 (UTC)
 * https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XMfoLN25FEM how come it says 1.90cm on stats which equals to 6,3 on this fight. i think that website just made an error. Turtlepp934 (talk) 05:53, 26 August 2022 (UTC)
 * BoxRec says 6 ft 1 in and 1.85 m as well. Before changing this, we should find a better source than a video clip of a single fight. I'm not sure how due this information is anyway; it is neither featured in the article body nor discussed in reliable sources, and infoboxes are supposed to summarizenot supplantinformation. If it was up to me, I would remove these stats altogether. Throast <sup style="font-size:.7em; line-height:1.5em;"> { { ping }} me! (talk &#124; contribs) 07:54, 26 August 2022 (UTC)
 * https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=11UaQFcy_TY andrew himself says it in this clip hes 6ft3 Turtlepp934 (talk) 03:11, 27 August 2022 (UTC)
 * These are stats from measurements in a sporting competition, I don't think I'm willing to take about self for this one. Even the link you posted above which says 1.90m equates to 6'2.2", which would just round down to 6'2", not 6'3". I'll leave it open for someone else to look at though, but I'm not doing based off of that. FrederalBacon (talk) 03:15, 27 August 2022 (UTC)
 * ok i just hear him say himself hes 6,3 many times and that fighting organization list him as 1.90m like in this other fight https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VEl_GHgqS-4 which is not that far back unlike those other two websites so i thought seeing 6,1 on here was wrong and 190m is equal to 6'2.8" basically 6,3 Turtlepp934 (talk) 03:47, 27 August 2022 (UTC)
 * It's a matter of conflicting sources then, which to me means the stat is unverifiable at this point, and it should come down entirely anyway. FrederalBacon (talk) 04:02, 27 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the template. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 04:04, 27 August 2022 (UTC)

Twitch ban
He’s banned from twitch now Q78q (talk) 05:57, 27 August 2022 (UTC)
 * According to this Bloomberg article, he deleted his channel before he could be banned. I don't see any more recent sources saying that he was banned. Throast <sup style="font-size:.7em; line-height:1.5em;"> { { ping }} me! (talk &#124; contribs) 08:13, 27 August 2022 (UTC)

Philanthropy
Animal Shelter and Rebuilding of Orphanage should be mentioned 2600:1014:B1A3:7F4A:14A2:B846:F94D:77B (talk) 00:57, 26 August 2022 (UTC)


 * He rebuilt an orphanage? Got a link? FrederalBacon (talk) 03:12, 26 August 2022 (UTC)
 * He apparently started a charity (TheTab, 2022) called the Andrew Tate Foundation that is aimed at helping men and women. Tate supposedly said in a video (that has since been removed for violating YouTube's Terms of Service) that the organization "is going to be dedicated to charitable acts of both genders", which to me sounds like nothing, considering he doesn't elaborate on what this means, but I guess it's a thing now. Only one reliable source has covered it, so I don't think it's worthy of a mention yet. Askarion   ✉  13:26, 27 August 2022 (UTC)
 * As noted above by FormalDude, there's no consensus on the reliability of The Tab, but it seems to churn out a lot of tabloidy low-quality content. I wouldn't use it if it's the only source reporting on a story. Throast <sup style="font-size:.7em; line-height:1.5em;"> { { ping }} me! (talk &#124; contribs) 13:56, 27 August 2022 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 27 August 2022
Remove then words "Tate became highly prominent during 2022" 68.1.116.172 (talk) 13:56, 27 August 2022 (UTC)
 * ❌: Please explain why this change should be made. Throast <sup style="font-size:.7em; line-height:1.5em;"> { { ping }} me! (talk &#124; contribs) 13:59, 27 August 2022 (UTC)

Update his current profession following mass social media bans
His current profession should be updated to “former Internet personality” following his Twitter, Facebook, Instagram, YouTube, and TikTok bans. 2A02:C7E:3C65:D800:D9C4:F25F:49BE:C48B (talk) 06:29, 29 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Please establish a consensus before request a change if it isn't an obvious correction. It's often not necessary to use former and in any case, you can still be an internet personality even if almost no one pays attention to you because you only use sites no one cares about. Nil Einne (talk) 07:40, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

Fighting records?
Why not add his kickboxing and mma records as all fighters records are present? Blahwikiblah (talk) 20:25, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

His MMA Record was on there but has been removed and a Kickboxing record (incomplete) can be found on Boxrec. Blahwikiblah (talk) 20:26, 29 August 2022 (UTC)


 * The argument to include something because it's included in other articles as well is invalid; when it comes to article content, we have to assess each subject individually. Tate's full martial arts/kickboxing record in table format is essentially undue because virtually no reliable sources cover it in depth. There might be an argument were Tate still primarily known as a kickboxer, but (at least as of a few weeks ago), this is no longer the case. It's best to briefly summarize his key achievements in prose, as is done under Andrew Tate. Throast <sup style="font-size:.7em; line-height:1.5em;"> { { ping }} me! (talk &#124; contribs) 20:55, 29 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Because every single editor who has added it in has made no effort to source the records, and unsourced information is removed from BLPs. FrederalBacon (talk) 20:58, 29 August 2022 (UTC)
 * It is important to add that Wikipedia does not automatically include information just because it is verifiable; due weight has to be considered as well. As I've tried to lay out above, his full fighting record is undue. Throast <sup style="font-size:.7em; line-height:1.5em;"> { { ping }} me! (talk &#124; contribs) 21:02, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

Social Media bans in lede
Hey, I was just reading through, I feel like listing each individual ban (which at this point consists of most mainstream platforms) makes the sentence too long. Would there be support for changing it to Tate's misogynistic commentary on social media has resulted bans from several platforms for violation of policy FrederalBacon (talk) 21:09, 29 August 2022 (UTC)


 * Sounds good to me; needs to be "resulted in bans". I'd also be fine with dropping the "for violation of policy". Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 21:11, 29 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Agree with Firefangledfeathers. Looks good. Throast <sup style="font-size:.7em; line-height:1.5em;"> { { ping }} me! (talk &#124; contribs) 21:12, 29 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Ooops, forgot a word, lol. I'll drop violations of policy, I wasn't sure on it either. FrederalBacon (talk) 21:19, 29 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Oh, I'm just now noticing, shouldn't it be "social media platforms"? Throast <sup style="font-size:.7em; line-height:1.5em;"> { { ping }} me! (talk &#124; contribs) 21:21, 29 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Maybe strike "commentary on social media " in favor of "social media platforms", so it's not repetitive? Throast <sup style="font-size:.7em; line-height:1.5em;"> { { ping }} me! (talk &#124; contribs) 21:26, 29 August 2022 (UTC)
 * I'm fine with a change if desired, but I don't think it's absolutely necessary. To me, changing the social media from the commentary to the bans would read like his views outside of social media got him banned from social media. Tate's misogynistic commentary has resulted in bans from several social media platforms. It leaves open the question: Where was his misogynistic commentary? But, I also understand where you're coming from. I'm easy going Throast, if consensus desires change, it desires change. FrederalBacon (talk) 00:12, 30 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Well yeah, but the same could be said for "platforms" (which platforms?). Throast <sup style="font-size:.7em; line-height:1.5em;"> { { ping }} me! (talk &#124; contribs) 00:39, 30 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Those are discussed in the article body; since the lede is just a sum up of the article, that was my intent with changing away from the various platforms being listed. "several platforms" sums the content in the article body without needing to list them again. FrederalBacon (talk) 02:57, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

Isn’t saying “Tate’s misogynistic commentary” a subjective & blatantly editorial phrasing for a neutral encyclopedia?
Title 23.186.80.194 (talk) 23:32, 31 August 2022 (UTC)
 * This has been extensively discussed under Talk:Andrew Tate. Current consensus is that the phrasing is appropriate and sufficiently supported by reliable sources. Throast <sup style="font-size:.7em; line-height:1.5em;"> { { ping }} me! (talk &#124; contribs) 23:56, 31 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Let's just take it back out of wikivoice. "Widely described as". I agree it's sourced correctly, but this isn't gonna end. FrederalBacon (talk) 00:37, 1 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Absolutely not. Until there are good, persuasive arguments brought forth that can convince editors to change their minds, current consensus remains. Throast <sup style="font-size:.7em; line-height:1.5em;"> { { ping }} me! (talk &#124; contribs) 01:01, 1 September 2022 (UTC)
 * In that case, another source. I'm going through it for Hustler University flesh out right now, might be beneficial elsewhere too. FrederalBacon (talk) 01:33, 1 September 2022 (UTC)
 * I think it is. Wikipedia claims to be neutral, it does not mean that it is. Ki999 (talk) 00:47, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

The argument that this is subjective lacks a fundamental understanding of our NPOV policy. –– FormalDude   talk   01:42, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

Andrew Tate has active, official accounts on Rumble and Gettr
The article has a whole section about Tate's social media presence yet his currently existing, non-banned accounts are not even mentioned. My suggestion is to add information about the existence of these accounts into that section, as well as to add links to these accounts into "external links" section. This is in my opinion the most important information that can possibly be on this page because a person's (this applies to everyone) speech is a more unbiased source of information than other people's interpretations of that speech. Accounts: https://rumble.com/c/TateSpeech https://gettr.com/user/cobratate Ki999 (talk) 16:48, 25 August 2022 (UTC)


 * This article does not exist to advertise how to see the subject’s views. If his continued social media use is covered in reliable third party sources, we can include them in the section. Other than that, someone having a profile on a social media network, in and of itself isn’t notable. FrederalBacon (talk) 17:02, 25 August 2022 (UTC)


 * "This article does not exist to advertise how to see the subject’s views." I respect this rule, that's why the information I suggested to be added is 100% objective fact that cannot be argued against. Unfortunately this rule has been already broken right in the lead section of the article. Wikipedia is supposed to be neutral.
 * "If his continued social media use is covered in reliable third party sources, we can include them in the section." - so I see your criteria for inclusion of a fact to Wikipedia is not the fact itself, but coverage by "reliable source". What does that even mean? How do you determine a source's reliability? One news site claimed without any evidence at all that Tate has described himself as "misoginist". Yet this unverified claim has been placed on Wikipedia as fact.
 * "someone having a profile on a social media network, in and of itself isn’t notable" - again, what is your criteria to determine if something is notable or not? 99% of this person's global recognition is because of his social media presence. How such a person's only remaining social media accounts are not notable? At the same time police raiding his house because of some baseless call is somehow more notable? Ki999 (talk) 17:51, 25 August 2022 (UTC)


 * Please familiarize yourself with what Wikipedia is. Here are some useful links: Help:Introduction, Teahouse Throast <sup style="font-size:.7em; line-height:1.5em;"> { { ping }} me! (talk &#124; contribs) 19:30, 25 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Let me remind you that our topic of discussion is the inclusion of links to the person's social media accounts. I see you have nothing to say about that and instead of addressing my arguments chose to claim that I am not familiar with what Wikipedia is. Don't change the topic. Ki999 (talk) 9:33, 26 August 2022 (UTC)
 * You evidently do not know what Wikipedia is. Had you known about Wikipedia's verifiability policy and guideline on reliable sources, you wouldn't have said, I see your criteria for inclusion of a fact to Wikipedia is not the fact itself, but coverage by 'reliable source'. What does that even mean? and asked, How do you determine a source's reliability? This talk page is not the place for general inquiries. If you are really clueless about these concepts, these questions should be asked at the Teahouse (as I linked to above) before starting a thread here. Per the content guideline on external links, links to social media accounts of the article subject are to be avoided unless the subject has no online presence outside of those social media platforms. Tate, of course, has his own website, which is already linked, both in the infobox and under Andrew Tate. Throast <sup style="font-size:.7em; line-height:1.5em;"> { { ping }} me! (talk &#124; contribs) 10:00, 26 August 2022 (UTC)
 * More than one news site has covered the video where he openly called himself "absolutely a misogynist". Hence, the inclusion. I would take some time to take a glance at the link Throast posted, it'll probably help with understanding why this article is the way it is. FrederalBacon (talk) 22:27, 25 August 2022 (UTC)
 * I know that multiple news sites claim that there is some video where he says that, but to my knowledge neither of these sites could point out to the video itself. Thus this claim is not verified, no matter how many news sites copy-paste it from each other. Links Throast posted did not help, our topic is inclusion of gettr and rumble links and I cannot find anything relevant to that in those links. Ki999 (talk) 9:33, 26 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Strangely, this point about the source video not existing has been made by another editor just a few days ago. Since you seem to be unwilling to do your own research, here is the video clip where Tate calls himself "absolutely a sexist" and "absolutely a misogynist". I believe it is an excerpt of his episode on Anything Goes With James English; here is the original full-length episode. Throast <sup style="font-size:.7em; line-height:1.5em;"> { { ping }} me! (talk &#124; contribs) 10:00, 26 August 2022 (UTC)
 * I don't understand where the vehement objections to the misogynist label are coming from. The subject himself not only openly applies the label to himself, but based off of that video, he seems a little proud of it. If he says he's a misogynist, who am I to disagree? FrederalBacon (talk) 16:17, 26 August 2022 (UTC)

I am going to address accusations towards me first. One of them is that I "evidently do not know what Wikipedia is" based on the fact that I have not read the manuals. I reject this because not having read every single manual does not mean "not knowing what Wikipedia is". Regarding guideline about social media links, I obviously did not know that rule and will follow it from now on. There is nothing strange that people doubt the existence of a video where Tate calls himself a misogynist. I am being accused of "seeming to be unwilling to do my own research", I will tell you I am not to blame for this because it is not my job to find that video. It is the job of journalists who publish that claim. They do not post a link to that video and I still see this as highly problematic. The actual quote was: "The typical feminist tactic is to cancel somebody, right? To come at somebody, call them misogynist and call them all these things and then that person loses their career or they're slandered; you can't slander me because I will state right now that I am absolutely sexist and I'm absolutely a misogynist and I have fuck you money and you can't take it away so I'll say what I want because I'm a realist and when you're a realist you're sexist." Does this mean he actually calls himself misogynist? I would argue that it does not. But again this is just my opinion and everybody should have a very easy access to that video to form their own opinion. The problem with the word "misogynist" is the fact that it is commonly understood as hate towards women as a whole. Mr. Tate has repeatedly stated that this does not apply to him. He says things like "women cannot drive, cannot fight, should clean, cook, obey men" while "men should pay for women". These are not hateful, these are simply conservative thinking. But anyway, I did not come here to remove that label. People are going to see it is bullshit anyway, so no need to remove it. My goal is to add a single sentence into social media presence section mentioning the fact that Andrew Tate is using Gettr and Rumble. You refused to add it because "reliable sources have not covered it". So now there is wide media coverage so there is no excuse anymore. I must admit I fail to fully comprehend the reliable source criteria so I do not guarantee every source below is reliable but I am sure at least some of them are. I see you don't need much support for claims you put here anyway, e.g. there is a sentence "The raid resulted in the recovery of an American woman and a Romanian woman". Recovery from what? This is a very serious accusation and most likely false, yet single website writing such a thing was enough to include it on the article, that site is very hard to find, unpopular and not even in English. Below are sources for the fact that Andrew Tate uses Gettr and Rumble: https://vimbuzz.com/who-is-andrew-tate-on-rumble https://vimbuzz.com/why-did-andrew-tate-join-rumble https://www.dexerto.com/entertainment/video-platform-explains-why-its-letting-andrew-tate-speak-freely-after-numerous-bans-1913340 https://video.foxnews.com/v/6311455396112 https://news.yahoo.com/amphtml/andrew-tates-narrative-control-completely-045532171.html https://www.sportbible.com/boxin/andrew-tate-ksi-fight-20220827.amp.html https://reclaimthenet.org/andrew-tate-joins-rumble https://www.express.co.uk/sport/boxing/1661266/Andrew-Tate-KSI-face-Swarmz-Luis-Pineda-Jake-Paul-Tommy-Fury-boxing-news https://www.revolver.news/2022/08/andrew-tate-joins-rumble-posts-farewell-video https://www.ginx.tv/en/twitch/andrew-tate-rolls-ksi-slams-him-as-being-a-hypocrite https://thepostmillennial.com/breaking-rumble-skyrockets-to-top-of-the-app-charts-after-big-tech-censorship-revelations https://www.aubedigitale.com/andrew-tate-rejoint-rumble-apres-avoir-ete-deplateforme-par-les-big-tech-il-publiera-du-contenu-exclusif/ https://www.ladbible.com/news/andrew-tate-speaks-out-facebook-instagram-20220819 https://www.dailystar.co.uk/sport/boxing/andrew-tate-ksi-boxing-youtube-27850842 https://www.animatedtimes.com/the-matrix-is-attacking-us-lets-cancel-them-andrew-tate-breaks-silence-on-social-media-ban-agrees-not-in-a-million-years-can-he-be-canceled-with-70000-people-watching/ https://www.essentiallysports.com/esports-boxing-news-controversial-kick-boxer-andrew-tate-challenges-ksi-to-a-fight-youre-full-of-st-youre-a-fking-hypocrite/ https://www.essentiallysports.com/boxing-news-company-that-offered-100-million-to-joe-rogan-welcomes-andrew-tate-with-open-arms-following-social-media-ban/ https://www.sportskeeda.com/pro-boxing/news-andrew-tate-goes-ksi-challenges https://www.rebelnews.com/social_media_platform_gettr_to_sponsor_youtuber_ksi_s_boxing_event https://www.blogdudemocrate.org/andrew-tate-sexprime-apres-avoir-ete-banni-de-facebook-et-instagram/ https://thedcpatriot.com/social-media-mogul-andrew-tate-banned-from-twitter-instagram-facebook-joins-gettr-revolution/ https://www.ladbible.com/news/andrew-tate-speaks-out-facebook-instagram-20220819 https://vimbuzz.com/who-is-andrew-tate-on-gettr/ https://www.louderwithcrowder.com/big-tech-banned-andrew-tate Ki999 (talk) 09:34, 28 August 2022 (UTC)
 * You're treading dangerously close to a WP:NOTHERE block. –– FormalDude   talk   09:58, 28 August 2022 (UTC)
 * I have been given 2 warnings by you. Where can I discuss these warnings without danger of being blocked? Ki999 (talk) 10:39, 28 August 2022 (UTC)
 * You can discuss them with me, or with an administrator, or you could also go to the Teahouse for community review. –– FormalDude   talk   10:48, 28 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes, I want to discuss them with you, but where? Here, on your talk page, my talk page, or somewhere else? Ki999 (talk) 10:56, 28 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Preferably my talk page, but your talk page is also fine. –– FormalDude   talk   10:57, 28 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Of the twenty-four links you supplied, I would call sixteen of them outright unreliable for use in this article (1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16), and even that's being pretty generous. Of the remaining eight, two of them are dead links (1 2). Four of them are the same (this one is just this one; this one was linked twice). Of the remaining four, none of them mention that he is on Gettr. Three of the remaining (1 2 3) might be citable, if you squint a little, but they mostly read like celebrity gossip. The final source is an interview between Tucker Carlson and the CEO of Rumble, who discusses that Tate is "exclusively" on his platform. However, I'd call this source unreliable because not only is it a feature on Tucker Carlson Tonight (an opinion show), the CEO of Rumble isn't talking about Tate as much as he is advertising his own service. I know it might seem overly critical, but when it comes to a popular yet highly controversial figure who is still alive (see: WP:BLP guidelines), we like to make sure that the sources we're using are reliable, and complies with Wikipedia policy. Askarion   ✉  13:03, 28 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Thank you for laying this out. I don't think there's a strong case for inclusion based on those sources. What Bloomberg describes as the major social media platforms (Twitter, Facebook, Instagram, YouTube, TikTok, Twitch) are covered in the article. Ultimately, those are going to impact Tate the most. I'd argue that Gettr and Rumble are fringe platforms, which is probably why virtually no reliable sources cover them in this context. In short, nobody cares that he's still on there. Throast <sup style="font-size:.7em; line-height:1.5em;"> {  { ping }} me! (talk &#124; contribs) 13:35, 28 August 2022 (UTC)

Most, if not all of what you wrote is simply your opinion which you cannot justify based on anything objective. I provided around 20 sources to support inclusion of a single sentence which exclusively consists of one/two completely undisputable fact(s) and somehow you managed to "debunk" every single one of them. You called 16 of them "outright unreliable" without a single justification of this label for a single one of these sources. Another three you rejected by saying "they mostly read like celebrity gossip". Based on what? Is it even allowed to use criteria like this to exclude a source? Then I can say that most of the sources included in the text read like obvious propaganda and dirt campaign (I actually think like this, I just did not know this is somehow relevant), let's exclude them too! "Tucker show is opinion show" - by which criteria? While the all articles you included are not opinion but facts? Are you saying the fact that Tate is on Rumble is not a fact but opinion? And "Rumble CEO advertises his product" - what? A company spokesperson talking for a short time about their service and policies when asked by a journalist has to be excluded? Well if that is the case, then many of the included sources/articles should be excluded as well because they have exactly that. If you are so picky about every claim made then most, if not all of this article is subject to removal. It is full of questionable claims supported by only one source or even no source at all, yet you still tolerate them. "I don't think there's a strong case for inclusion based on those sources." - I did not see anyone making case for including anything else at all, yet they are included. This is purely your opinion and if we look at the whole population of people who knows the subject I am sure this is in tiny minority. You are basically advocating for censorship of any non-big tech platform mention since they are not "major" and call them with negative word "fringe" while in fact the ones that have to be condemned are those who have big market share in a given niche, like YouTube and Twitter. These are not only anti-free speech but also monopolists and would be broken down if it was easy. Simply not being one of these monopolists - you call it "fringe" and point-blank refuse to mention them. And what you are saying at this point is simply false. Rumble is above many of these "major" apps in App Store top charts right now source and you continue to claim it is too "fringe" to be mentioned. Btw the link I just posted can be used as a source for this too, on top of around 20 links previously posted. Is this one also "unreliable"? Every single source that mentions a fact that you don't want to be mentioned magically happens to be "unreliable"? And how about "nobody cares that he's still on there"? Do you actually believe this? Or there is someone behind you forcing you to talk like that? What is the source for this claim? Maybe you or your "reliable sources" have conducted some survey among people who look for information about the subject asking them "do you care about the fact that he is still using some platforms who did not ban him?" and 100% of them responded "no"? Let me know if that is the case. Otherwise your claim is completely baseless, false, I would say offensive and probably intentionally provocative. If you Google the phrase "andrew tate social media" (huge part of this article) you will be automatically shown "What social media is Andrew Tate on?" which proves this is the most widely asked question when it comes to this topic and you want to exclude answer to this question from everywhere. Despite all this coordinated inorganic heavy censorship efforts in which you are involved his new video on Rumble already has more than 600,000 views. Imagine what would happen if there was no censorship. "Nobody cares"? So what is the reason now for not including this fact, a reason that does not apply to anything else that has been included? Ki999 (talk) 15:49, 28 August 2022 (UTC)

In my previous message, I forgot to mention the fact that you have falsely claimed that 2 of links I shared are "dead". In reality one of them is not dead (this one). I noticed this article contains sentence "The account appeared to have been part of a promotion with Bugatti". I question this "fact"'s notability. Actually this is not even a fact. It is just impression of some journalist. So what was the "reliable source" for this "fact"? It is the website independent.co.uk and nothing else. This sounds very similar to express.co.uk which is the website that you lied about. These 2 sites are from the same country and have similar similarweb ranking. Actually the site I suggested ranks a little higher. So it seems this site is the hardest to be called "unreliable" among all that I provided. Perhaps it was unintentional but I see it extremely likely that you intentionally lied to me and regard this as a fraud. I am considering reporting it. Are you making claim (which you haven't made yet) that express.co.uk is unreliable source, too? How about independent.co.uk? I am waiting for your answer. Ki999 (talk) 18:17, 28 August 2022 (UTC)
 * About that…  Madeline  ( part of me ) 20:24, 28 August 2022 (UTC)
 * I would STRONGLY encourage a visit to WP:RSP. Yes, some sources are considered completely unreliable here on Wikipedia, through community consensus. Most of the links you shared above are not fully trusted sources, and a couple of them are considered completely unreliable. FrederalBacon (talk) 22:41, 28 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is run on verifiability, not truth. You cannot say so much as "the sky is blue" on Wikipedia without putting a reliable source behind it. Tate very well might be on Rumble; I am not denying that he is, and neither is any other editor here. But we cannot include it in the article unless this fact is clearly reported on by a reliable source that we can cite. We can't just link to Tate's page on Rumble and call it a citation. I would recommend giving WP:RSP a once-over. In the table, it is clearly indicated that Fox News talk shows, such as Tucker Carlson Tonight, are "generally unreliable". Also, I assure you that this link is dead. When viewed on the Wayback machine, the article mentions that he challenged KSI to a boxing match on "the latest episode of his Rumble podcast". It does not mention Gettr. Askarion   ✉  23:43, 28 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Point of note: That link is not dead for me, and it's isn't a cached version as I've never clicked that link until now. FrederalBacon (talk) 23:48, 28 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Oh, it appears I'm the April Fool. For some reason, that link refuses to load for me, just showing a white screen. My apologies to @Ki999. Askarion   ✉  23:52, 28 August 2022 (UTC)

[https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Perennial_sources Sources which are generally unreliable may still be useful in some situations. For example, even extremely low-quality sources, such as social media, may sometimes be used as self-published sources for routine information about the subjects themselves.] That's it. People who claimed that all the sources I posted fall into the "generally unreliable" category conveniently omitted the fact that this does not mean that they cannot be ever used. Ki999 (talk) 11:37, 31 August 2022 (UTC)


 * BLPs have a higher standard.. The specific thing you're asking here refers to WP:BLPSELFPUB. That requires 5 things, and all 5 things, of self published sources
 * it is not unduly self-serving;
 * it does not involve claims about third parties;
 * it does not involve claims about events not directly related to the subject;
 * there is no reasonable doubt as to its authenticity; and
 * the article is not based primarily on such sources.
 * FrederalBacon (talk) 11:44, 31 August 2022 (UTC)


 * BLPRS says twice, in different forms, in bold text that this only applies to challenged or likely to be challenged, contentious material. Material I want to be added is none of these, unlike many claims included in the article.
 * WP:BLPSELFPUB also very explicitly says that it only applies to sources where subject talks about himself: his website, his social media accounts, things he says about himself in interviews, etc. For vast majority of sources I posted this does not apply.

In short, this last response is totally irrelevant and you should come up with something else if you want to disagree. Ki999 (talk) 15:27, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

Looks like we have a source on this now: https://news.sky.com/story/andrew-tates-move-to-anti-cancel-culture-streaming-platform-rumble-after-social-media-ban-causes-surge-in-activity-12687658 I will go ahead and add this in, unless there is any objections? Canadianr0ckstar2000 (talk) 14:15, 5 September 2022 (UTC)


 * I'm highly disinclined to submit to this user based on their interactions with other editors but if you're extended-confirmed, I can't stop you, can I? Throast <sup style="font-size:.7em; line-height:1.5em;"> { { ping }} me! (talk &#124; contribs) 14:19, 5 September 2022 (UTC)
 * I guess it depends on how exactly you put it in the article, and where. I still think "Tate maintains an active account on Rumble" is more of a non sequitur than an encyclopedic addition. But if you phrase it as, "Tate moved to Rumble following his bans from several major platforms", maybe there's a place for that. Is there any consensus on Sky News as a reliable source? Askarion   ✉  14:52, 5 September 2022 (UTC)
 * From the few times it's been discussed, yes. It's a major news organization owned by Comcast, so unless there are specific grounds for concern, it can be presumed reliable. Throast <sup style="font-size:.7em; line-height:1.5em;"> { { ping }} me! (talk &#124; contribs) 15:17, 5 September 2022 (UTC)
 * I'm fine with either way. throast, Askarion you can add it however you like. Canadianr0ckstar2000 (talk) 15:18, 5 September 2022 (UTC)
 * , the majority of your total contributions to Wikipedia have been to Rumble (website) and Alt-tech. Before implementing this information, you should clarify whether or not you have a conflict of interest in regard to Rumble or any alt-tech platforms, as is custom per WP:COICOIN. Throast <sup style="font-size:.7em; line-height:1.5em;"> { { ping }} me! (talk &#124; contribs) 15:34, 5 September 2022 (UTC)
 * I do not, I follow alternate technology extensively. Canadianr0ckstar2000 (talk) 15:38, 5 September 2022 (UTC)

New York Times tells a blatant lie that has big influence on this article
Take a look at this bullshit: Mr. Tate posted a video on YouTube called the “Final Message” on a nonofficial account called “The Tate Bible.” This has been disproven by the same article twice. First, it says that Tate is already banned from YT. Second, it says that channel is unofficial (i.e. extremely likely does not belong to Tate). If a person is banned from YT it is completely impossible for them to upload a video to YT unless they hide this fact very carefully (so that NYT cannot know it). Therefore they have no evidence for this and all evidence points to contrary. So "reliable source" New York Times lied. When it comes to many sites that have been declared as "fake news" on Wikipedia the best evidence for this claim is something like this (sometimes even that is not there, especially when it comes to naming a site or person "far-right"). And yet, "There is consensus that The New York Times is generally reliable" on RSP. Another source was declared "generally unreliable" because NYT criticised it. This RSP is essentially based on circular reasoning and totally questionable. Now back to the topic (the blockquote). In reality, Tate did not upload that video to some unofficial YT channel. He uploaded it to his official Rumble channel and someone just reuploaded it on some fan channel. The second part is obviously not notable. Especially bc it was taken down very quickly as well. So they should have written instead: Mr. Tate posted a video on Rumble called the “Final Message” on his official account called “TateSpeech.” They lied to prevent people from knowing about Rumble. Meanwhile the same article mentions YouTube 8 times. Not only Rumble is not mentioned, the author lied to remove even the slightest suggestion that Tate has a channel somewhere else, instead suggesting that he needs YT so much so that he desperately created a fake channel there. And whoever who wrote Wikipedia just copied that sentence with slight modification to remove the lie but end result is the same. Throast, you added this sentence, then someone else corrected it. Care to explain the reason why the fact that someone unknown re-uploaded a video on a fake YouTube channel is more notable than the subject himself uploading it on his official Rumble channel? Other than NYT's lie, of course. (I see you just made some changes right there couple minutes ago, so my text above may be a little bit inconsistent with the current revision but point stands.) Ki999 (talk) 15:27, 31 August 2022 (UTC)
 * The sentence Tate responded to the bans in a video posted to an unofficial YouTube channel does not suggest that Tate posted it himself. NYT might have information we don't that confirms that Tate has some control over this "nonofficial" channel. If they indeed fabricated this as you suggest, I guess you could call that a "lie" but that seems a bit overblown, just like this entire discussion. What you need to understand is that Wikipedia includes information that is verifiable by reliable sources, not information that is true, meaning truth is not our standard for inclusion. It's a tough thing to wrap one's head around so I encourage you to read the essay. The community considers NYT reliable, hence information based on its articles is verifiable. If you want to challenge NYT's "reliable" label, you can do so at Reliable sources/Noticeboard. Good luck with that. Throast <sup style="font-size:.7em; line-height:1.5em;"> { { ping }} me! (talk &#124; contribs) 15:45, 31 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Do you have any intent of providing evidence of your claims of COI or OR in the ANI? This is getting ridiculous, you have no problem replying here and demanding other editors answer your questions, but won't give evidence for your very public accusation. I have no COI for this subject. I am an involved editor, as disclosed on my user page, but I only became aware of Tate when I responded to a semi-protected edit request. Before that, I had no knowledge of him at all, and all knowledge I have of him comes from editing this article. I also have no strong opinion on him, it's just a high visibility BLP that was poorly sourced when I became involved and I wanted to help. FrederalBacon (talk) 15:46, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

I don't think I will try to change NYT's label at RS because I believe these labels are not determined in a reasonable way. Actually tons of discussions are already made about this site alone, and the problem with RSP is not limited to it. However, I would like to point out to the fact that NYT is labeled as "generally reliable" not "absolutely reliable". Therefore, depending on context, their claims are to be questioned. If someone actually claims that NYT has evidence that AT has uploaded videos to that fake yt channel, they need to either prove it or stop making such claim and agree that NYT lied.

I will not prove any of you having a COI because I don't have to prove something I never claimed in the first place. I only asked a question if you have one, this is something completely compliant with guidelines and does not mean a claim. Yet you claim that this question is something that is to be used against me, which is not. I have only said the following:

And how about "nobody cares that he's still on there"? Do you actually believe this? Or there is someone behind you forcing you to talk like that? What is the source for this claim?

This question was directed at Throast. To my knowledge, he has not responded.

Regarding OR claims from my side, yes, I am planning to provide evidence for these claims.

FrederalBacon, you have just admitted that you have no knowledge of the subject whatsoever other than things that you learned while editing this article. If that is the case, I would suggest you to not be involved in this article and go edit something else.

FrederalBacon, we were actually having an argument here. I have shown that your argument is invalid and politely asked you to either agree with me or bring another argument. You refused to do either of these and instead attacked me, accused me of making this "ridiculous" and then changed the topic to something that was being discussed on another page. Ki999 (talk) 17:29, 31 August 2022 (UTC)
 * You happy? Throast <sup style="font-size:.7em; line-height:1.5em;"> { { ping }} me! (talk &#124; contribs) 17:52, 31 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Not really. Ki999 (talk) 01:11, 1 September 2022 (UTC)
 * The attempt to take ownership of an article and force me off because you don't think I know enough is noted. I did not attack you, at all, in any way. In fact, I gave you the benefit of the doubt that you didn't know that there were sources that don't qualify for inclusion here on Wikipedia. I assumed good faith. The above post is just a personal rant against New York Times and the sourcing guidelines here, I see no valid points, so I feel absolutely no need to address anything you've brought up, as I personally give it little weight. FrederalBacon (talk) 17:51, 31 August 2022 (UTC)
 * I probably did not "attempt to take ownership of an article" (I say "probably" bc Idk what this even means). I did not attempt to force you to anything. Ki999 (talk) 01:11, 1 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Do you actually believe this? Or there is someone behind you forcing you to talk like that? is a pretty wild accusation to throw at someone for saying what amounts to "I don't think Tate having a Rumble account is significant enough to include on its own". A big problem for the argument for inclusion is that, as of yet, Tate has not done anything of note on Rumble. He challenged KSI to a boxing match; that is not notable. If Tate does or says something notable on Rumble, I'm sure it will be covered by reliable sources. Until then, "Tate has an active account on Rumble" is not a necessary inclusion. Askarion   ✉  17:52, 31 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Do you actually believe this? Or there is someone behind you forcing you to talk like that? was not an accusation. It was a question I asked because of the "nobody cares" claim. This claim was never justified. Are you sure that "Tate has not done anything of note on Rumble"? If so, how do you know it? Did you watch every single video on that channel? How about the now-terminated YT channel, did he do anything notable there? Ki999 (talk) 01:11, 1 September 2022 (UTC)
 * It is not my job to watch every video Andrew Tate has ever posted in the history of the internet. What makes a statement or action "notable" is not for me to decide; it is for reliable sources to decide. If they decide to write about and publish a certain thing Tate said or did, that must mean what he said or did is notable; if enough of them write about it, it creates a case for inclusion in the article. For now, the most notable thing Tate has done on Rumble is challenge KSI to a boxing match, which was covered by a few tabloids and one source that appears as a dead link for some users and not for others. Askarion   ✉  13:03, 1 September 2022 (UTC)