This is an archive of past discussions about Milo Yiannopoulos. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
I don't think those sources are unreliable, given the content they are used to support. In both cases, it is a relatively uncontroversial claim, that is not unduly self-serving and which doesn't appear to violate NPOV in any way. In other words, I don't think the hat note is necessary, but I want to see what Albin and any other watchers have to say before I remove it. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPantsTell me all about it.16:11, 1 February 2018 (UTC)
Citing Breitbart and Milo on how charitable he is seems like a real conflict of interest. Furthermore, Breitbart is not considered a WP:RS. The fund was debated in The Guardian - why not use the information from there? The Guardian claims: "He said donations were still in his bank account and would be spent, as originally promised, exclusively on white men to balance scholarships for women and ethnic minorities. He also promised to register the fund as a legal charity. Yiannopoulos did not respond to a Guardian interview request."[1] It is furthermore irrelevant what he WANTED to do. It is more interesting what did happen: nothing that was intended. As far as I can see it, Milo's website claims to give money to 10 white men but that wasn't confirmed by any trustworthy source. There has been enough reliable sources writing about the grant - why not just use them? Why use probably biased material?--APStalk17:13, 1 February 2018 (UTC)
I don't see how Breitbart and Milo himself are cited for "how charitable he is". I see a grant being set up by Milo, and the date of it being sourced to Breitbart. I'm not sure how giving the date is any sort of POV shift, and I'm not sure why Breitbart might be considered unreliable for the date. Similarly, I don't see how repeating a claim from the privilege grant (while attributing it to them, which is a clearly permitted use per WP:SELFPUB) and noting that they withheld potentially important information is any way unduly self-serving.
If you are aware of other sources to which the date, the fact that they announced ten recipients and the fact that they did not give the names of those recipients can be cited, the please replace the sources currently being used, or at least list them here, so I can replace them. Otherwise, I will remove the hat note as UNDUE and a possible POV push and leave the section as it is.
I'm not sure how you think the rest of your response here addresses my question, so I'm not responding to it beyond pointing out that you are making talk space edits that imply you are a POV pusher, and that will hinder your ability to gain consensus here, as well as possibly result in sanctions, should it become too obvious. This talk page is not the place to vent against Milo, and this article is not the place to "expose" him. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPantsTell me all about it.17:23, 1 February 2018 (UTC)
The sources talk about his stances against abortion and Islam, with the first one also discussing the ACLU lawsuit for the freedom of his speech. Leaky.Solar (talk) 18:17, 2 May 2018 (UTC)
Currently, we include Yiannopoulos within the category "British Christian Zionists", I'm not sure if this is accurate. The theolgy of Christian Zionism is specifically related to a group of Protestant sects, beginning with John Nelson Darby/C. I. Scofield and the theory of Dispensationalism, relating to Jews coming to occupy the land of Palestine. This is what the likes of John Hagee and John McCain adhere to, but does Yiannopoulos? As far as I can see, he shills for the State of Israel in its conflict with its primarily Muslim neighbhours and is nominally a member of the Catholic Church (despite being an active and notorious homosexual), but there is no theological basis underpinning his pro-Israel views. While he is both a Christian and a Zionist, there is no evidence that the two things are related in his case, any more than "Homosexual Zionists", "Blonde-Haired Zionists" would be. Claíomh Solais (talk) 17:13, 26 May 2018 (UTC)
I could be mistaken, but I think Wikipedia guidelines or maybe policy relies on self-identification or based on widespread identification by others, so if he personally identifies as Christian Zionist or most journalists refer him to as being such, this would IMHO be sufficient. But I could be wrong because I haven't been able to find any guideline or policy on this. I'll give you an example: Milo identifies as gay, yet has dated women in the past (I think a little 10 years ago or so) which leads some to question whether or not he really is gay[1]. But the fact he says he's gay I believe satisfies WP policy. I'd assume same is true of Christian Zionist claim. Mansheimer (talk) 01:39, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
I've removed it. This would first need to be explained, with a reliable source, and I don't accept that being pro-Israel and being Christian necessarily mean that Christian Zionism applies. It could, but it sure seems a lot more confusing than informative.
Quora is not a reliable source. For sexuality, Wikipedia accepts that he's who he says he is, and we would need a specific reason to cast doubt on that. By policy, you may be thinking of Wikipedia:Categorization/Ethnicity, gender, religion and sexuality, but I don't accept that this would apply for "Christian Zionist". A specific political position on Israel doesn't define his religious beliefs, so this wouldn't necessarily belong in this article. He is not a theologian, and isn't known for his religious commentary or similar. Again, a source would have to explain this as a starting point. Grayfell (talk) 02:38, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for the clarification, Grayfell. I agree Quora is not a reliable source and of course I wouldn't agree using it in an article. I used the link as an example out of many that can be found on web forums where people are discussing Milo as a Christian Zionist and so on. I know I'm not too experienced and everything, but using Quora and web forums to illustrate a point on talk pages I assume is acceptable? Mansheimer (talk) 02:24, 23 June 2018 (UTC)
Oh sure, this isn't a big deal. There are unacceptable links, such as WP:ELNEVER stuff or doxing or similar, but this ain't it. Since the goal is to improve the article, ultimately this will need something reliable. It's reasonable to try and get a grasp on what people are interested in, but we're editors, not journalists. Sometimes the things people are curious about are really nobody's business, at least as far as Wikipedia is concerned. Grayfell (talk) 02:43, 23 June 2018 (UTC)
Gun violence against journalists
The SPLC has a very eye-opening report on Yiannopoulos' recent comments about shooting journalists.[2] This could be used to expand the corresponding section in the article.- MrX 🖋 23:26, 28 June 2018 (UTC)
And the only thing it does add (that isnt there already) is that the SPLC (or at least the writer of that article for the SPLC) thinks that he really does wannt right-wing assassins to target journalists, no it isnt a joke etc. That is a direct contradiction to his 'No I was joking! Honest!' response. Only in death does duty end (talk) 01:30, 29 June 2018 (UTC)
What the hell else is he going to say? Less than 2 days after MY called for vigilantes to gun down journalists, a vigilante gunned down journalists. He has to pull the troll move of "Oh, I was just joking about that!" and stick to it. Hallward's Ghost (Kevin)(My talkpage)02:38, 29 June 2018 (UTC)
Sorry, I thought the timeline was clearer: 1.Milo calls for violance against journos. 2. SPLC states 'yes he really does want people to commit violence against journos, no he isnt being ironic. 3.Shooting event. 4.Milo says 'Only joking!'. In context with the timeline the SPLC piece is more significant - it occured before he stated he wasnt serious. Only in death does duty end (talk) 23:29, 29 June 2018 (UTC)
Yes, and the whole "it's only a joke" routine is part of the alt-right playbook.- MrX 🖋 00:39, 30 June 2018 (UTC)
Yeah but the shooting event had nothing to do with politics. Everything reported currently is he had a grudge against that newspaper specifically and not journalists in general, and certainly not because of Yiannopoulos. PackMecEng (talk) 23:34, 1 July 2018 (UTC)
The only link I've seen is Milo crowing about how the lib'ral media will blame it on him, which will prove that they lie and send people flocking to the alt-right, etc, etc. Just another in a long line of "this will prove that the media is controlling your brain!" bullshit comments that never comes to pass. Certainly nothing notable enough for us to add here. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPantsTell me all about it.23:37, 1 July 2018 (UTC)
Bullshit. He sued the newspaper 6 years ago and lost. He didn't shoot the place up until this week, shortly after MY's call and Trump's "enemy of the people" rhetoric. But I'm sure that's just a coincidence. Hallward's Ghost (Kevin)(My talkpage)05:24, 2 July 2018 (UTC)
Actually yeah, it does sound like a coincidence. A tragic one to be sure but that is basically what sources are saying. PackMecEng (talk) 12:52, 2 July 2018 (UTC)
(edit conflict)All the articles I've read on Ramos explicitly deny that the shooting was politically motivated, including those written on his political affiliations, such as this Salon write-up. I have to say, if Salon won't ascribe you political motivations in an article explicitly intended to link you to a political group, the notion that this was based on politics is spurious. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPantsTell me all about it.12:56, 2 July 2018 (UTC)
Please actually read the article before presuming to tell me what it says. That Salon article never mentions Milo once and only mentions Trump three times, and only one comes even close to assigning any blame to Trump. And that one mention that does seem to assign some blame is immediately followed by both the author and one of the interviewees giving multiple other reasons for the shooting. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPantsTell me all about it.20:54, 5 July 2018 (UTC)
I read the article. You dishonestly implied that the author somehow absolved Trump and MY of blame. That was not true, and given your defense of both of those vile jackals, it seems like a purposeful lie. Hallward's Ghost (Kevin)(My talkpage)04:21, 6 July 2018 (UTC)
I suspect it should still be mentioned in the lede that he is gay, given all the controversies regarding it etc. If pedophilia accusations are reflected, this seems kinda unfair. Though he's mostly just a troll, of course.Miacek(talk)09:54, 19 May 2018 (UTC)
-- Why is there single-sourced highly defamatory material with undue weight in the lede of a biography? The second paragraph says this:
Much of the work at Breitbart which brought Yiannopoulos to national attention was inspired by the ideas of neo-Nazis and white nationalists.
This is sourced to a single Buzzfeed tabloid article (hardly NYT level of reliability). It is given a large amount of undue weight. It's been a few years since I edited here, but does Wikipedia no longer follow WP:BLP policy? 95.155.15.119 (talk) 02:42, 17 July 2018 (UTC)
That Buzzfeed article is sufficient for the claim. Truth is, Buzzfeed News has established itself as a reliable source, even if their clickbait is most certainly not. Hell, Milo has published images of himself in Nazi regalia; it's hardly a controversial claim, no matter how poorly it reflects upon the subject. You can go find a better source (they certainly exist) if you don't like the Buzzfeed news, but this has been litigated before, and the consensus was clearly in favor of inclusion. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPantsTell me all about it.03:04, 17 July 2018 (UTC)
Official Website not working
The official website listed for Milo Yiannopoulos is not working. You should mention instead his active news site, www.dangerous.com. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.59.179.24 (talk) 04:34, 23 July 2018 (UTC)
There is a typo in the "British politics" section (an extra comma): "Yiannopoulos was originally an outspoken supporter of the Conservative Party, , but applied to join UKIP in June 2018." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.82.152.38 (talk) 04:16, 16 July 2018
Shouldn't this section add the fact that this journalist was fired from The New Yorker for falsely accusing an ICE agent and disabled veteran of being a Nazi based on his tattoo (the tattoo was that of his former unit)? The sentence as written omits the context of the controversy in such a way as to make Mr. Yiannopoulos seem like an aggressor rather than a juvenile prankster when in fact it was Lavin's intent to slander a disabled vet with no real evidence. Furthermore the only citation given is of the SPLC which is a left wing advocacy group and not a neutral source.
[[3]] 100.45.89.189 (talk) 22:52, 23 July 2018 (UTC)
His status as a disabled vet has nothing to do with this, but I guess Yiannopoulos's "notyourshield" shtick only applies when it's convenient. Speculating about Lavin's intent, or misrepresenting her prompt apology and retraction, are inappropriate anywhere on Wikipedia, per WP:BLP. Wikipedia is not a platform to continue her harassment. A man in his thirties is not a "juvenile prankster", nor would that be any sort of excuse if he were. In fact, nowhere does the linked NY Post article mention Yiannopoulos at all. Grayfell (talk) 05:21, 24 July 2018 (UTC)
What Greyfell said. Milo donated $14.88 to a jewish journalist who got herself in trouble. That's the only relevant bit. The fact that it was nazi-fuckery that reflects poorly on Milo is just tough luck for his supporters. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPantsTell me all about it.14:26, 24 July 2018 (UTC)
why is this article still using a 2014 picture of milo?
this is not what he looks like now -- any google search will tell you this -- and the picture should be representative. using a 2014 photo just comes off as unnecessarily petty, and irresponsible of the wikipedia editor who chose to do that. 2605:6000:1706:8681:5423:E2CC:1:BBF6 (talk) 23:27, 15 August 2018 (UTC)
Because it's the best photo we are legally permitted to use. Suggesting we steal a random image off the internet just to make him look good just comes across as unnecessarily petty and irresponsible. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPantsTell me all about it.23:30, 15 August 2018 (UTC)
Due to the rules regarding non-free content (see WP:NFCC) we can only use free photos of living people. This means quite often the only photos available to use are out of date. Feel free to update the photo if you are able to source a more up-to-date photo that has been released under a free license. Make sure to read WP:NFCC and WP:IUP first however. Only in death does duty end (talk) 23:34, 15 August 2018 (UTC)
There is a sentence in this article that reads "Yiannopoulos denied that his comments were responsible". The article is locked so can't correct it but it looks like the proper word should be "irresponsible". BubbleWobble (talk) 10:17, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
Correct as it is; he denied that his comments were responsible for provoking the shooting at the Capital Gazette, two days later. Nedrutland (talk) 10:35, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
Update in light of August 2018 comments
Please could someone update this page in light of Yiannopoulos's comments, as reported here and here
I suggest that Yiannopoulos's claim that he was "a significant factor in Donald Trump getting elected" merits inclusion in the article and would fit neatly in the Political Views section. Jono1011 (talk) 15:39, 27 August 2018 (UTC)
Milo Yiannopoulos' Instagram Post Praising Mail Bombs (news article)
Proposed revision of the 2nd introductory paragraph
The second paragraph in this article's introduction does far more to misinform than it does to inform. Please read the BuzzFeed article it's based on for yourself and see if you agree. The second paragraph of this introduction starts, "Much of the work at Breitbart which brought Yiannopoulos to national attention was inspired by the ideas of neo-Nazis and white nationalists." This is technically true according to the BuzzFeed article, but what is not mentioned is that the article Yiannopoulos wrote that brought him national attention was on the subject of the alt-right, so naturally involved contacting people commonly associated with neo-Nazis and white nationalists and discussing their ideas. If you read the full BuzzFeed article it actually strongly supports the notion that Yiannopoulos worked actively on an ongoing basis to distance himself from neo-Nazis and white nationalists for ideological reasons as well as optics.
The rest of the second paragraph extrapolates this misrepresentation, up to the point where it mentions his Dangerous book and the detail that "many" of his Breitbart articles were ghost-written. This last part seems pertinent, but maybe more appropriate in the "Controversies" section.
In general it seems this second paragraph belongs more in the "Career" or "Controversies" section where it can have the context it deserves for a greater depth of understanding. BuzzFeed is a single source with issues of its own (let's just say it's not the NYT); why is this single-source out-of-context factoid so critical that it must be the second paragraph of the introduction for the entire article, when it is more relevant to the aforementioned sub-sections? Without the relevant context the second paragraph becomes more like a character assassination than an attempt to accurately inform the reader. As is I think it lowers Wikipedia's credibility.
For reference here is the second paragraph in full in its current state: "Much of the work at Breitbart which brought Yiannopoulos to national attention was inspired by the ideas of neo-Nazis and white nationalists. In October 2017, leaked emails revealed that Yiannopoulos had repeatedly solicited neo-Nazi and white supremacist figures on the alt-right for feedback and story ideas in his work for the website Breitbart. The leaked emails also showed that his book, Dangerous, and many of his Breitbart articles were ghost-written by a Breitbart colleague." Joeparsec (talk) 21:59, 12 October 2018 (UTC)
You know, a google image search will find plenty of pictures of this guy in Nazi regalia, and a google video search will find you a video of him giving a nazi salute at a karaoke bar, along with a dozen other nazis, including Richard Spencer. So... No. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants
Re@ MjolnirPants: Do a search for Michael Richards and you'll find him saying he wants to string ni**ers up in a tree. You can take that out of context and definitively say he's a white nationalist neo-Nazi too. The primary issue I'm raising is that the BuzzFeed article is selectively interpreted to justify the second paragraph in this intro. Unless you want to turn the introduction of Yiannopoulos into points and counter-points of how his rise to fame was or wasn't inspired by white nationalist and neo-Nazi ideas -- which is the neutral way this subject should be raised when sourcing it to the single BuzzFeed article -- we should agree to move this part to a more relevant section where it can get the fuller context. Re@ K.e.coffman: if this is what he is best known for there should be a lot more than a single arguably-selectively-interpreted BuzzFeed article backing that up in the citation for the second paragraph in the introduction. Joeparsec (talk) 09:22, 13 October 2018 (UTC)
Doing a search for Michael Richards will turn up information about one incident in his life. Milo, on the other hand, experiences a pattern of 1) getting caught being or acting like a nazi, 2) getting called out for it, 3) working hard to disassociate himself from modern nazis, 4) beginning to establish that he's not a nazi, and then returning to 1) getting caught being or acting like a nazi again. So yeah, your counter example is unconvincing. Regarding your response to Coffman: There are seven sources used in the article to establish Milo's nazi cred. But only one is used in the lede, so thank you for outing yourself as unwilling to read more than two paragraphs before making ideologically based complaints here. We now know that we will be justified in ignoring you out of hand if you continue to pursue this argument. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPantsTell me all about it.21:00, 14 October 2018 (UTC)
Modern American Extremism and Domestic Terrorism: An Encyclopedia of Extremists and Extremist Groups basically says the same thing that MP just wrote: [5]. K.e.coffman (talk) 22:13, 14 October 2018 (UTC)
You're both talking opinion until you provide citations for the second paragraph. As it stands the second paragraph is based on a selective part from a single source. Yiannopoulos does an exposé on the alt-right (I tried to link to the exposé but Wikipedia's editors have blacklisted it), does primary research, and you're telling me the best way of summing that process up is to say, "Much of the work at Breitbart which brought Yiannopoulos to national attention was inspired by the ideas of neo-Nazis and white nationalists." !!? Read the link above provided by K.e.coffman; Yiannopoulos calls anti-Semites and white supremacists "the worst dregs of human society." In the next sentence someone from the SPLC says, "racists...and oddball figures like Yiannopoulos have more in common..." In a Wikipedia article we wouldn't include the latter and omit the former. Joeparsec (talk) 08:58, 15 October 2018 (UTC)
You're both talking opinion until you provide citations for the second paragraph. There are seven such citations used in the article and one provided at the second paragraph itself. Your refusal to acknowledge this is not reflective of any failure on our part. As for the rest, see WP:ABIAS. We do not reflect fringe opinions with the same weight as we reflect mainstream opinions. The mainstream opinion (which is also a verifiable fact) is that Milo associates with neo-nazis and has much in common with them. Milo's statements to the contrary represent the fringe view of a tiny minority, and deserve virtually no weight whatsoever as a result. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPantsTell me all about it.13:09, 15 October 2018 (UTC)
re@ MPants: You're being disingenuous to say the second paragraph is based on seven sources. It's based on one. One that's not of the highest caliber and is missing context. I'm just repeating myself. Hope more people weigh in on this issue. Joeparsec (talk) 09:14, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
Have you ever read MOS:LEDE? I highly recommend it. Especially MOS:LEDECITE. In case you can't be bothered, I'll summarize. We usually don't cite material in the lede because the lede is a summary of the body, which should be cited in-line. We only add cites to the lede if a statement is particularly contentious. This means the bit in the lede that you're reading is a summary of this section, which is supported by six unique citations. Add to that the one from the lede, and the lede bit is supported by seven cites.
So you can take your bad faith accusations and shove them. It's not disingenuity, it's me knowing how to write a fucking lede and you not. :)
Of course, it doesn't matter. Because it's supported by at least one reliable source, it's certainly WP:DUE as it's what Milo is arguably best known for. Your opening claim that the paragraph "does far more to misinform than it does to inform." is not only completely ridiculous, it really makes it look like you're here to push a political agenda rather than improve the project. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPantsTell me all about it.12:26, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
Summoned from the darkness of WP:BLP/N Considering all the corroborating evidence, I'd suggest that the Buzzfeed article is certainly a reliable source and that this is definitely WP:DUE considering that Yiannopoulos's main claim to fame is play acting as a nazi. Simonm223 (talk) 17:06, 23 October 2018 (UTC)
re@MPants at work: I don't know what's worse: you justifying a hit piece ("We do not reflect fringe opinions..." neglecting the fact that the "fringe opinion" is from from the same source/article as the "mainstream opinion"), or you justifying not citing material. It makes sense if the lede is later expounded upon and supported by many reputable sources. You say it is supported by "seven such citations," but after several responses you haven't cited these. Just to remind you, here is what you are claiming seven sources back up definitively, to the point that it can be used in this introduction: "Much of the work at Breitbart which brought Yiannopoulos to national attention was inspired by the ideas of neo-Nazis and white nationalists." Regarding Wikipedia articles about controversial figures, it's especially important to have many citations backing up what's in the lede. Right now there is exactly one regarding this paragraph. Joeparsec (talk) 18:29, 23 October 2018 (UTC)
re@ Simonm223: Yes, BuzzFeed is probably a reliable source as per WP:DUE, though you don't specify what "corroborating evidence" you're talking about. I'll also reiterate that it's only one source, and I've mentioned how BuzzFeed has potential credibility issues. To add to that list (not mentioned in that article), The Atlantic has termed one of BuzzFeed's publishing decisions as sidestepping "a basic principle of journalism." I'll repeat my conclusion: this second paragraph is too out of context and not supported enough to include in the introduction; we should move it down to a more relevant section. Joeparsec (talk) 18:29, 23 October 2018 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Refs 142 through 144 corroborate Buzzfeed; and as the Buzzfeed leak was of Yiannopoulos' own emails that there are multiple independent sources reporting these as legit is all we really need for corroboration. The second paragraph is entirely within context and I don't give two hoots about whether publishing those leaked emails represented "sidestepping a basic principle of journalism" since that's not as relevant as the fact that the emails demonstrate pretty clearly that Yiannopulos is a basic nazi wannabe. Simonm223 (talk) 18:35, 23 October 2018 (UTC)
@Simonm223: I don't see "multiple independent sources reporting these [emails] as legit" linked anywhere here; do you have citations? Note that BuzzFeed has not made the supposed leaked emails public, except in excerpts quoted in the article. I think it's noteworthy BuzzFeed is the sole corroborating reference for these email leaks, and doubly noteworthy that the author of that article is spinning primary-source research as being "inspired by the ideas of neo-Nazis." Its overall credibility as the sole source of the second paragraph must be relevant here. Joeparsec (talk) 18:59, 23 October 2018 (UTC)
@Simonm223: Those citations are reports referencing the BuzzFeed article (Ref 7), not explicitly confirming it. You could argue that's implicit confirmation, but that would be sidetracking from the points I've raised. I said in the beginning that the BuzzFeed article is technically accurate, but that its conclusion is taken out of context. I'd like to reiterate the points from my previous response to you too: It's very noteworthy that the author of that article is spinning primary-source research as being "inspired by the ideas of neo-Nazis." That's even more concerning in the context of BuzzFeed's questionable credibility and judgment. The entire second paragraph is based on that. A reminder of the intro of the second paragraph: "Much of the work at Breitbart which brought Yiannopoulos to national attention was inspired by the ideas of neo-Nazis and white nationalists." Joeparsec (talk) 19:27, 23 October 2018 (UTC)
You haven't raised any points. You've bitched and tried to convince us that your own OR overrides the reliable sources we're currently using. Well, it doesn't. If you don't have anything else, then we're done here. Come back with sources or don't come back at all, thanks. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPantsTell me all about it.19:30, 23 October 2018 (UTC)
@MPants at work: To make it easy for everyone to add feedback, here are the points I've raised which I've backed up with citations:
•BuzzFeed is the only source cited to support the second paragraph that can be summarized by its intro: "Much of the work at Breitbart which brought Yiannopoulos to national attention was inspired by the ideas of neo-Nazis and white nationalists." 1
•Yiannopoulos did primary research on the alt-right, and BuzzFeed uses this to justify the statement "Much of the work at Breitbart which brought Yiannopoulos to national attention was inspired by the ideas of neo-Nazis and white nationalists." 1
When I've made these evidence-based points you've implied I'm pushing a political agenda. You've responded to the first point saying there are seven sources justifying that lede, but haven't cited them. You've justified one-sided smear articles and not responded to my points on the same (you said: "We do not reflect fringe opinions..." neglecting the fact that the "fringe opinion" is from from the same source/article as the "mainstream opinion"). You've cited irrelevant articles about academic bias. And after all this you've said I "haven't raised any points." This is a good demonstration of why Wikipedia works on citations and not on personal attacks/smears and opinions. As I mentioned before this is all a great exercise in repetition, and I hope/welcome more people to weigh in. Joeparsec (talk) 20:17, 23 October 2018 (UTC)
I think this conversation is over. Joeparsec challenged a source. Page consensus is firmly in 1AM territory that the source is reliable and the information is due. No reliable sources were provided to suggest that the Buzzfeed information, widely reported in multiple sources, is anything other than 100% accurate. And that's that. Simonm223 (talk) 22:48, 23 October 2018 (UTC)
BLPN consensus (so far, in my opinion,) seems to be against this used in the lead. I do think the Buzzfeed News source is reliable. But as to it being due, there are a lot of RS on Milo, and a very small fraction of them discuss this (Buzzfeed and a few that discuss the Buzzfeed article), which suggests it isn't due for the WP:LEAD (even if it was due in the article). If we did include it in the body, per WP:RACIST we would want attribution for the claim that he was inspired by neo-Nazis and white nationalists. Additionally I have concerns that the words "inspired by" is not an accurate reflection of the Buzzfeed article (and as such WP:OR). To me, being "inspired by" requires more than merely talking to them about a given story, but includes adopting some of their views (or using them as a starting point), which I don't believe even the Buzzfeed article alleges (And it doesn't use the words "inspired by"). -Obsidi (talk) 17:05, 24 October 2018 (UTC)
What the hell, here's an actual look at the consensus (note how I actually EXPLAIN MYSELF and try to do the same whenever you look at a consensus):
Between this page and BLPN, there are 5 editors disagreeing with the current content; Nil Einne, Masem, Obsidi, Digby Dalton (since blocked for being a 5-year-old about it) and Joeparsec (who hasn't been much better behaved than Digby). There are 8 editors defending it; Me, K.e.coffman, Simon223, NorthBySouthBaranof, Dumuzid, Vanamonde93, Only in death and HandThatFeeds. There are three more editors who've jumped in, but none indicated clearly whether or not they supported the content, only arguing against one other editor (two against an editor arguing to remove, and one against me) on a tangential point. Presumably (and I mean "certainly" by that because duh), the editor who wrote the passage as it currently appears also supports it: Steeletrap. So the muddiest that support count gets is 11-6 in favor of the text, and the clearest support count is 9-5.
Several editors have edited the lede without objecting to this content: Phillip Cross, MrX, Nedrutland, WhatsUpWorld and JzG, not to mention a host of drive by "fix bias" type POV editors who changed a lot of things, but not that. Some of those editors may object to this content, some may support it, but none of them found it objectionable to the point of changing it, even though it was right there in front of them as they edited.
The arguments against the current content are:
It's not supported by the source because [no reason ever given, and at least one editor making this argument acknowledges that there is no "technical" difference between the content and what the source says].
It's not neutral, even though it's true and highly relevant.
It implies that Milo associates with neo-nazis.
It's insulting to Milo.
The source is not reliable.
And the arguments in favor of the content are:
It's supported by the source because that's literally what the phrase "inspired by" means.
WP:NPOV disagrees with the assertion that it's not neutral.
It's true and relevant.
The source is reliable according to multiple discussions at RSN. Stop confusing Buzzfeed News and regular Buzzfeed.
So that's actually a consensus in favor of the current content, but it's not an overwhelming one so nobody's using it as an excuse to start hatting threads yet. But that will happen sooner or later, if this doesn't come to an end. I've asked multiple times for someone to describe the difference between what the content states and what the source states. So far, the only answer I've gotten has been "There is no technical difference," from Masem. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPantsTell me all about it.17:45, 24 October 2018 (UTC)
And, while it's important to consider that Consensus is not a majority vote and so the relative numbers are less important, there has been no compelling Wikipolicy reason put forward for the change to the lede. When a majority of editors provide a Wikipolicy supported rationale for inclusion and a minority of editors provide no such rationale (frankly Masem's rationale I can't even fathom) supporting exclusion that does not suggest that consensus supports exclusion in any way. Simonm223 (talk) 18:07, 24 October 2018 (UTC)
The thing is, I'm not even opposed to changing it on a fundamental level. I'm just opposed to conceding to horrible arguments. Give me a good reason to change it (along with a good proposal of what to change it to) and I could get behind it. But the arguments presented thus far are not just unconvincing, they're convincing me that changing it would be a bad thing. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPantsTell me all about it.18:32, 24 October 2018 (UTC)
Well, I was commenting on BLPN only (not including the editors who had already commented on this page), and even then it was a close call (if you think its no consensus so far at BLPN, I think that is a reasonable to take) but yes, with the additional editors from this page it does seem to be no consensus so far.
Let me help clarify what the arguments against the current content are:
It's not supported by the source because: "Associates" does not equate to "inspired by" (This is I think an WP:OR claim).
It's does not have the weight (in terms of % of RS when discussing milo) to be in the lead.
It implies that Milo agrees with neo-nazis without attribution as required by WP:RACIST.
The source is not reliable. (I don't personally agree with this one, but others have raised it.)
And the arguments in favor of the content are (With my own comments in parentheses):
It's supported by the source because that is what some editors think "inspired by" means.
WP:NPOV disagrees with the assertion that it's not neutral. (But the question per WP:NPOV should be on the % of RS discuss this when talking about milo, requiring a high % to include in lead)
Oh, I'm so happy you posted this. Like, you have no idea how much I laughed upon reading this. You might as well have just posted "Yeah, well I have no idea what I'm talking about, so good luck convincing me of anything!"
It's not supported by the source because: "Associates" does not equate to "inspired by" (This is I think an WP:OR claim). The source shows that he actively solicited ideas from white supremacists and neo-nazis, in order to write an article he decided on his own to write, about neo-nazi and white supremacist ideas. That is not a claim that he "associates" with them, but that he was inspired by them. So please go back to BLPN and actually read those portions I quoted, because what you're claiming the source says here and what the source says in those quotes is not at all the same thing.
It's does not have the weight (in terms of % of RS when discussing milo) to be in the lead LOL. ROFLMAO. LOLOLOLOLOL Seriously you need to do some research on this guy. Besides, as has been pointed out multiple times: SEVEN FUCKING SOURCES, and that's just about the leaked emails, we've got nine more that are explicitly about his relationship with the alt right, dozens that explicitly call him a member of the alt-right and god-knows-how-many who mention the alt-right, neo-nazis or white supremacists in the context of Milo. This is literally a more ignorant claim than anything made by the drive-by POV pushers who come here to insist that Milo isn't alt-right and WP is smearing his good name before throwing a fit and getting indeffed. I mean literally more ignorant than what they say. Do you even know who Milo is? LOL
The source is not reliable. That's just bullshit.
It's supported by the source because that is what some editors think "inspired by" means. And the reason we "think" that is because... drumroll please... That's what it fucking means! ;)
It's true and relevant. (But See WP:NOTTRUTH) Oh, I really think you're the one who needs to read that. Like, really badly.
Thank you for taking the time to further undermine your own argument and prove beyond any reasonable doubt that it is not even remotely based on policy or rationality.
P.S. I forgot an editor who argued against a proponent of removal, so you can increase the "support" count I gave by one in the muddiest number. Also, since I wrote that, another editor (HandThatFeeds) has come along to support the current content, so add another "support" to all the counts. In fact, I'll do that now. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPantsTell me all about it.20:12, 24 October 2018 (UTC)
You are free to believe what you wish, I will let my contributions speak for themselves. I've read it again, and I do not agree that it says he was inspired by neo-nazis or white supremacists. I ran a search on Factiva for all publications with "milo yiannopoulos" in it and found 8,574. I then ran a search for all publications that contain both "milo yiannopoulos" and the words "inspired by" and found 101 articles (of which 21 were exact duplicates). I examined each of those 80 non-duplicate articles and could not find a single one which said that milo was inspired by nazis, neo-nazis or white supremacists. Can you cite ANY RS that uses those words (inspired by) to link milo to nazis, neo-nazis or white supremacists? If you want to change the text to something that says alt-right or something along those lines, just tell me what the text you propose is and I will see how many RS actually use that phrase. -Obsidi (talk) 01:51, 25 October 2018 (UTC)
I will let my contributions speak for themselves. Ha! Oh trust me, your "contributions" speak volumes.
I examined each of those 80 non-duplicate articles Bull-motherfucking-shit. She-goddamn-nanigans. I don't believe this shit for one second.
Can you cite ANY RS that uses those words I'll tell you what. I'll find you a whole slew of RSes using that exact phrase the moment you find the part of WP:V that says we're supposed to be using the exact same words as the sources, instead of summarizing them. Hell, I'll do you one better and show you a writ-in-stone, never-gonna-change, community-consensus-is-fucking-irrelevant policy that says we shouldn't do that: WP:COPYVIO. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPantsTell me all about it.03:19, 25 October 2018 (UTC)
You don't believe me? Then go double check my work, here is my list of all 80 non-duplicate articles: User:Obsidi/MiloSources (with the title the word "AT" in capitals and then the publication source/date etc.). Yes we should not be copying word for word sentences from the sources. But you would think that if there was a large number of sources which said milo was inspired by neo-nazis that some RS out there would actually use those words. -Obsidi (talk) 04:10, 25 October 2018 (UTC)
That's some good WP:SOUP there at that list of non-linked articles from random sources listed by headline and with no context. Can you please provide us with one or two of those, high quality, and supporting your proposed edit in clear language? Simonm223 (talk) 12:09, 25 October 2018 (UTC)
I’d love to give you links, but I read the content on Factiva which licenses the content (I could give you the factiva links, but if you don’t have an account you wouldn’t be able to access them). So while I’m sure there are probably links to most of these sources I don’t know what they are. But per WP:PAYWALL, even if included in an article that doesn’t mean they wouldnt be verifiable. -Obsidi (talk) 12:37, 25 October 2018 (UTC)
Additionally, this is a BLP claim, on which the burden is on those who wish to keep it (I could go remove it right now until there is consensus that it is valid). Secondly, I’m trying to prove a negative, that there is no RS anywhere that uses those words to connect milo to neo-nazi’s. -Obsidi (talk) 12:42, 25 October 2018 (UTC)
(edit conflict)Googling the names of the first several hits shows that Obsidi basically just grabbed every passing mention of Milo he could find. See articles like this, and this and even his very first item. Obsidi apparently doesn't know how to do an effective news search using the service he pays for to do news searches. So it's not surprising that few, if any of them say anything in particular about Milo; the vast majority aren't even about Milo.
Not that it matters, as listing a bunch of articles doesn't even suggest that Obsidi has examined all of them, and even if it did, it still doesn't matter as Obsidi is trying to "prove" that the sources we currently use don't say what they actually say, and even if he did that it STILL wouldn't matter because Obsidi's larger point is that Milo's links to the alt-right are WP:UNDUE and that's just laughable on the face. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPantsTell me all about it.12:47, 25 October 2018 (UTC)
Obsidi I'm going to make this really simple for you - we can't adjudicate the relevance of sources we haven't read. And your list provides no context for the contents and relevance beyond that they're articles that mention the subject. Please provide references supporting your requested edit in a form that can be read without a subscription to whatever the heck Factiva is. Simonm223 (talk) 12:55, 25 October 2018 (UTC)
Again, I'm not asking for 80 refs tangentially related to the subject. I'm looking for one or two high-quality sources that support your proposed edit. That's not a big ask. In fact, it's a minimal ask. Simonm223 (talk) 12:57, 25 October 2018 (UTC)
Under WP:BLPREQUESTRESTORE: the burden of proof is on those who wish to retain, restore, or undelete the disputed material. I have removed the material that seems to be an analysis of the Buzzfeed News article [6]. The burden is not on me to provide a RS that Milo isn't inspired by neo-nazis, the burden is on those who wish to keep this material in this article to provide a RS that actually says that and gain consensus that the reliable source actually says that before restoring. My claim above is broader than what BLP requires: that there is NO reliable source anywhere that says Milo was inspired by neo-nazis. For BLP, all I need to claim is that the source actually provided does not say what it is being claimed for. -Obsidi (talk) 14:27, 25 October 2018 (UTC)
Read WP:CRYBLP and either provide reliable sources disputing the claim, which has been thoroughly sourced already or fuck off. Seriously, dude, you're begging for an ANI report, and you're going to get one soon with this tendentiousness. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPantsTell me all about it.14:33, 25 October 2018 (UTC)
Stop whitewashing the article. The "work at Breitbart" was not only "inspired by", but actually sympathetic. If it hadn't been, Breitbart wouldn't have given him a platform, and, by extension, explains why Trump likes Bannon, as well as worships dictatorial world leaders who are also racist nationalists. Mpants's restoration of good content is proper. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe15:25, 25 October 2018 (UTC)
@ BullRangifer: this isn't the time or place to discuss subjective opinions as fact. Come with on-topic credible citations. @General: Reminder about WP:CIV. Joeparsec (talk) 20:04, 25 October 2018 (UTC)
@Joeparsec: Just so you know, Obsidi just got indefinitely blocked for doing nothing over the past 11 years except jump into discussions and stir up shit. So please don't think that resuming the battery of this necrotic equine is a good idea because he commented here. You have run face first into a consensus that opposes you, so it's time for you to move on to more productive things. Also, that's how you ping someone. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPantsTell me all about it.20:13, 25 October 2018 (UTC)
I agree to a consensus with Obsidi regarding WP:BLPREQUESTRESTORE. Regarding @"MPants at work"'s citation of WP:CRYBLP. "MPants at work": can you please specify under which sub-heading of WP:CRYBLP you find Obsidi's WP:BLPREQUESTRESTORE edit to be objectionable? I've reviewed that section and have not concurred with your finding. Joeparsec (talk) 20:22, 25 October 2018 (UTC)
Since I originally started this thread, MjolnirPants (possibly also writing under the name "MPants at work") has cited "seven sources" as justifying the second paragraph's "Much of the work at Breitbart which brought Yiannopoulos to national attention was inspired by the ideas of neo-Nazis and white nationalists." These "seven sources" have never been specifically identified thus far. Obsidi has raised additional significant issues about this paragraph as well, especially in regards to the phrase "inspired by," based on WP:LEAD, WP:RACIST, WP:OR, WP:NPOV, WP:NOTTRUTH, and WP:PAYWALL, which I second. And in addition to these, the issue of WP:BLPREQUESTRESTORE has come up, and I agree with Obsidi's edit based on this pending justification as requested from those who object. I've clearly raised and stated this and for @Tronvillian to say there "...seems to be consensus on that, so reverting Obsidi's edit seems to be completely consistent..." is a strange and blatantly misrepresentative statement, to say the least, on par with @"MPants at work"'s apparently (not-so)-veiled threat(?) , "...don't think that resuming the battery of this necrotic equine is a good idea..." It's really simple folks: we all come to a consensus based on the guidelines for Wikipedia edits. At this point several Wikipedia editors have raised very legitimate Wikipedia-policy-based issues that have thus far gone un-addressed. For several of these issues, the burden of proof falls on those making the claims, and must otherwise be reverted. Joeparsec (talk) 21:27, 25 October 2018 (UTC)
"MPants at work" is clearly identified as an alternate account of MjolnirPants, as a moments glance at their user pages would tell you. --tronvillain (talk) 22:37, 25 October 2018 (UTC)
we all come to a consensus based on the guidelines for Wikipedia edits We have come to a consensus. Also, consensus is not unanimity, so it doesn't matter if you agree or not.
At this point several Wikipedia editors Two out of four have been blocked and a third has admitted that their objection is not technically accurate.
have raised very legitimate Wikipedia-policy-based issues Untrue. WP:CRYBLP is quite the opposite of a "Wikipedia-policy-based issue".
Comment I don't think I'm interested enough to discuss this issue any more, especially since two of the people who've also seen there could be a problem have got themselves blocked for silly behaviour. One of them indef. But although I know this is a BLP, it seems clear that quite a few people feel whatever problems may or may not exist aren't severe enough to warrant immediate action. Given that it's unlikely you'll convince sufficient people that there is BLP action required, can we all just forget about "burden of proof" and other such defeatist attitudes and concentrate on achieving consensus? Also if some parties feel consensus has been reached but others strongly disagree that it has, the simplest solution would be to get a neutral admin to close. Frankly since the discussion is so messy, it may be better to agree hopefully on 2 different possible phrasings for the lead, and start a neutrally worded RFC and go from there. But only if no agreement on consensus can be achieved with out it. (As said, I'm not likely to participate in such an RFC or the discussion leading up to it so this is simply a suggestion if there remains dispute.) Nil Einne (talk) 10:38, 26 October 2018 (UTC)
Right now, Joeparsec, a relative newbie, is the only one objecting to the content. The objections they have raised are not policy based, and those nominally-policy-based objections that were raised at BLPN have literally all been addressed. Not to belabor the points too much, but I'll summarize the arguments for exclusion with their counterarguments, and you can judge for yourself. The arguments are in bold.
This is not sourced. It is sourced to this, and it is a summary of this section which contains 6 additional sources.
None of the claimed sources exist. Yes, in fact, they do.
The source doesn't support "inspired by" only "associates with". This is just completely and obviously untrue, as any reading of the sources will show. Note also that one editor (Masem) who presented this argument at BLPN has acknowledged that the source "technically" supports the content, and explained that their real concern was the implications of the content.
Even though it's supported by the source, it's still a BLP violation. No-one has shown anything controversial about the statement. No RSes disagree with it, several RSes explicitly agree with it and many many RSes implicitly agree with it. Claims are not contentious simply because an editor insists they are. You have to show them to be contentious before you get to demand supporters of the claims have the burden of proof.
No RS explicitly calls Milo a neo-Nazi. Neither do we. Also, this is not necessarily true. I've seen several borderline reliable sources do so, and I wouldn't be the least bit surprised if an RS did.
MjolnirPants is an asshole. Well, yeah, but I haven't been an asshole to anyone in this discussion. Utterly dismissive towards the guy who got indeffed for doing nothing other than jumping into arguments to flame them up (and starting new arguments that do nothing but heat things up) after he jumped into this argument to flame things up, yeah. But never straight-up assholery.
That's pretty much it. If I missed any, let me know, and I'll post a response. If you're curious about the history of this discussion, I can also post diffs to where the arguments were made and countered first. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPantsTell me all about it.13:32, 26 October 2018 (UTC)
Regardless of whether you like the paragraph being discussed, this version is better:[8]. Unfortunately, it's not the current version because the editor above (ignoring my syntax corrections) told me "please stop" when in fact I have not edited this article in about a year. I'll just leave this link here for anyone who might have a particular interest in this article. I certainly don't. Connor Behan (talk) 05:06, 28 October 2018 (UTC)
Pardon me if I don't simply take your word that your version is better, especially when there are something like 9 editors who have supported the current wording and maybe half that who have opposed it (two of whom have been blocked, one indefinitely, and a third of whom is a brand newb with very little idea of what they're talking about), and when the arguments put forth in opposing it have all been addressed. Even you admitted it was accurate. Our BLP policy is not an end-run around WP:V that allows you to remove facts you do not like. If you can show that this is contentious among the sources that cover Milo, then we can have a discussion about the BLP implications. But we don't rely upon your WP:OR to decide whether a claim is contentious or not, and thus whether a claim is a BLP violation or not. See the comment above yours, where I pointed out that this has been addressed already. I would like to add that this has been addressed multiple times already. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPantsTell me all about it.05:15, 28 October 2018 (UTC)
Hey guys, I'm not a Wikipedia contributor at all, I just opened this article and the disputed sentence just confused me. You've been discussing technicalities here, and I don't really understand your slang, etc. What the article still fails to do is to show how much his actual work was inspired by neo-Nazi ideas. Someone above is arguing that this sentence summarizes a section in the article, but to me that session summarizes to the fact that he corresponded with some people, which is his job as a journalist. What would actually substantiate that sentence would be references to his works expressing or supporting "the ideas of neo-Nazis and white nationalists".217.144.189.152 (talk) 08:59, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
religion
I know. still. on the one hand we have a Breitbart article which mentions without any support that he is a practicing Roman Catholic (also without any definition of "practicing", which is not univocal). But now he has said "I told Campus Reform, '... I am a Jew'." https://www.dangerous.com/45111/middle-rages/?fbclid=IwAR0WJSdTBHiiEUuXHyS-tJKX_yieu7ZPDIUNfvgJH4UT-n3X5sQWsLB2MC0, about a quarter down. I would take his own word over an article with an unsuported statement in it. So short some way of expressing this ambiguity in an easy-to-read fashion, I suggest that the line about him being a practicing Roman Catholic simply be removed. If it is necessary to discuss his religion, both sources get mentioned along the lines of "Y's religion has been reported in various ways. He has said... and ....."--Richardson mcphillips (talk) 04:32, 26 November 2018 (UTC)
Milo Yiannopoulos 'more than $2m in debt', Australian promoters' documents show
OK John Cummings, I'm fine with the sources but now I'm concerned about the rewrite:
"In April 2018 documents assembled by his former Australian tour promoters Australian Events Management show Yiannopoulos had accrued more than $2 million in unpaid debt"
@MrX: I don't think the Guardian is known for making false and defamatory statements, the journalists claim to have personally seen the documents. I believe it is fair to assume the documents are real and accurate. Wikipedia:RELIABLEWP:Verifiability
having said that, if you believe it should say that the documents are "alleged to show" then I'm fine with that. CheersBacondrum (talk) 22:03, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
To be clear, I don't doubt the veracity of the reporting. What I'm not certain of is if the promoter's allegations should be accepted at face value. I'll wait to see what other editors think before making any changes.- MrX 🖋 22:30, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
Haha? "Roused" NOT "Aroused" - These two words have completely different contemporary meanings
Apparently some Wikipedia editor thinks it's OK to use "haha. they're gay!" as an insult against people they dislike.
Under the section titled "Leaked Breitbart emails", on its second paragraph, it says "According to her, Yiannopoulos was getting the others "AROUSED".
The source says, "Then I had people get in my face. It might have been Milo because he didn't immediately go outside; he was kind of getting them ROUSED, and they were saying, 'Make America white again.'"
The meaning of the word is clearly apparent when read in context. No where does it say he was getting them "aroused". This is a blatant misquote, and the casual, everyday understanding of that word is almost always used in the context of sexual arousal. Rd3457 (talk) 15:02, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
I would like to address the supposed long-standing consensus of treating the Buzzfeed report that Yiannopoulos was inspired by neo-Nazis and white nationalists as fact, specifically addressing Simonm223. Buzzfeed is not a reliable source. As you can see here, they were only factchecked once on Politifact, and the rating for their story was "Pants on Fire." Our own article on Buzzfeed makes clear here that it is widely seen as an unreliable source. So why are we treating their hit piece on Milo Yiannopoulos as fact? Display name 99 (talk) 15:11, 14 December 2018 (UTC)
We've been over this many times. No credible source has disputed the accuracy of the information leaked by Buzzfeed. There's no reason to doubt their reliability in this instance. Sorry, but Milo is a nazi. Simonm223 (talk) 15:31, 14 December 2018 (UTC)
Wow, your application of Wikipedia rules is pathetically weak. We are not permitted to rely on unreliable sources for controversial content, especially if it is for a WP:BLP. I've never found a clause anywhere in the Wikipedia guidelines that allows us to use controversial information from unreliable sources just because we can't find a reliable source which has disputed it. You're simply making crap up. I also find it remarkable that a gay Jewish Catholic guy legally married to a black man who has never criticized Jews or blacks, nor ever exalted the white race the way that people like Richard Spencer do, and has in fact repeatedly criticized actual neo-Nazis, is being called a Nazi. But I wouldn't really expect much better from a Marxist. Display name 99 (talk) 20:57, 14 December 2018 (UTC)
A single reporter from Buzzfeed News was nominated for the Pulitzer Prize, not the organization itself. And the fact that it is owned by Buzzfeed suggests unreliability. Display name 99 (talk) 20:57, 14 December 2018 (UTC)
First of all, it's clearly an opinion piece. We have to distinguish between content that it is neutral and objective and things which are opinion-based. The NYT publishes opinion piece and he treat those different than regular articles. Also, while the article does confirm that he corresponded with some of them and in one instance was even complimentary of one, it makes no mention of whether he was inspired by them or that he solicited them for ideas. Display name 99 (talk) 22:04, 14 December 2018 (UTC)
I don't see the point in you posting content that has nothing to do with the information that we're trying to verify, which is simply what's in the lead. We aren't hear to discuss whether or not Milo Yiannopoulos is a neo-Nazi. We're here to talk about whether his ideas were inspired by neo-Nazis and whether he has solicited their advice, which is what the Buzzfeed News article reported and what we have treated as fact. Buzzfeed News is listed as reliable at Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources/Perennial sources. However, that is only because it separated from Buzzfeed and became its own domain. It did so in July 2018. The Yiannopoulos article came out on October 5, 2017, when Buzzfeed News was still formally associated with Buzzfeed. Just click on the link to see how reliable a consensus of Wikipedia editors believe Buzzfeed is. Display name 99 (talk) 22:44, 14 December 2018 (UTC)
@Display name 99: Oh no, not another one of these arguments, please just stop it now, you are beating a dead horse that has been beaten quite a few times now. Regarding this page, you have made positive contributions so far, but given the previous discussions on this talk page (I assume you've read them and have seen that consensus on this issue has been reached a number of times now) to beat this horse again appears to be bordering on WP:NOTHERE. The argument has been had over and over, any attempt to play down the Nazi connection is a biased attempt at obfuscation of well known and well documented facts. On your user page you state that "Politically, my philosophy can be best described as a mix of paleoconservatism, the Christian right, Jacksonian democracy, and right-wing populism." so your politics clearly lean towards the conservative/right-wing aspects of Yiannopoulos. I would strongly advise you to refrain from editing pages relating to conservative or right wing politics, if you are incapable of stepping back from your own beliefs and bias, you may find it difficult approaching the subject from a WP:NPOV. I don't want my watch list filled with tendentious debates and or edits WP:TE. You've come here with your bias hanging out for all to see see, and that's good, thanks for being transparent about your political leanings, however trying to obscure the less socially acceptable facts about Yiannopoulos would be WP:ABIAS. The fact is that the only reason I've ever heard of Yiannopoulos is the Nazi thing, and the only things I've read about him regard his connections to Nazism and White nationalism, the anti Nazi protests etc...it is the only reason he is notable at all, it is the only reason anyone has ever heard of him - the ridiculous trolling and his connections to Nazism are the only things that get reported about him, he is only newsworthy because of his regurgitating extremist talking points and his connections to extremism. There are more than enough citations in the article that cover this (there's at least seven last I checked). With nearly every report on the man mentioning his connections to the extreme right, white nationalists and neo-Nazis, it would serve to obscure the facts if one was to pretend the connection isn't there. A brief web search will find a video of him singing America the Beautiful while neo-Nazi's, including neo-Nazi/white supremacist Richard B. Spencer, do the old Sieg Heil at a bar with several, you guessed it, neo-Nazi's. This debate has been had enough times, you're trying to obfuscate, at least one other editor that I know of has received an indefinite block after pursuing this route, you surely don't want to go there, again. The debate has been had, move on. Bacondrum (talk) 03:38, 15 December 2018 (UTC)
@Display name 99:Also, reliable, highly credible and widely respected publications re-published the claims in the Buzzfeed article, the Guardian, The New York Times, The Times, Forbes etc etc etc. They would not have published it if the original source material was unreliable. Time to put this silly debate to bed..."We aren't hear to discuss whether or not Milo Yiannopoulos is a neo-Nazi. We're here to talk about whether his ideas were inspired by neo-Nazis and whether he has solicited their advice, which is what the Buzzfeed News article reported and what we have treated as fact"...So, you don't think Nazi's are influenced by Nazism? Sheash! That's a very silly argument to say the least and it isn't logical at all. Bacondrum (talk) 07:30, 15 December 2018 (UTC)
Bacondrum, there are several points that I would like to make. Firstly, I do not believe that editors with biases should be prevented from editing political articles so long as they do not have a history of tendentious editing and violating Wikipedia rules on this page, and I would say that neither is the case for me, although other editors are of course free to scrutinize. Secondly, the vast majority of Wikipedia articles are edited by left-wing contributors. Many such editors give strong indications of their political views on their userpages, as the editor who reverted me and later posted here has done. I would argue that many of these people fail to separate biases from editing and have in fact engaged in tendentious and forbidden editing patterns. But I don't see very many complaints for something to be done about them. I don't actually edit articles on modern politics as often as I do on other subjects, as you can see from my userpage, but when I do, I think I can act as an important check on those people.
In answer to your sources:
Huffington Post. Seriously?
The Forbes article supports the claim that Yiannopoulos and others solicited advice from neo-Nazis and white supremacists. But it does not support the idea that "Much of the work at Breitbart which brought Yiannopoulos to national attention was inspired by the ideas of neo-Nazis and white nationalists."
The Guardian piece is an opinion article and should be treated accordingly.
Southern Poverty Law Center is a leftist group that has controversially labelled a number of conservative groups as hate groups.
The Times of Israel article documents a totally separate event and doesn't even mention the Buzzfeed incident. Once again, we aren't here to argue whether or not Milo Yiannopoulos is a neo-Nazi or a bad person. We're here to discuss whether the central claim of the paragraph-"Much of the work at Breitbart which brought Yiannopoulos to national attention was inspired by the ideas of neo-Nazis and white nationalists."-is supported by reliable sources.
For the Dallas Observer article, again, a totally separate incident.
The NY Daily News article also supports the claims that he communicated with white nationalists but does not say that a significant amount of his work was inspired them.
Again, the America the Beautiful thing is not what this is about.
Basically, nobody has produced any reliable sources to support the idea that "Much of the work at Breitbart which brought Yiannopoulos to national attention was inspired by the ideas of neo-Nazis and white nationalists." Therefore, it should not be in the article. As for Nazis being inspired by Nazis, they most certainly are. But someone who is not a Nazi would likely not get much inspiration from them. Display name 99 (talk) 16:16, 15 December 2018 (UTC)
@Display name 99: Nonsense. Stop it. I'm not willing to waste anymore time pulling apart your rubbish claims, they've been made before and rebutted thoroughly before. You're beating a dead horse, your points are desperate at best. I know it's upsetting that your hero is connected to Nazism, maybe you should look for another hero. Like I said, if you are invested in conservative politics, perhaps you shouldn't edit conservative politics pages. If you keep on with it I'll report you for Wikipedia:Tendentious editing and WP:NOTHERE. No one wants to have this stupid argument, again.Bacondrum (talk) 22:38, 15 December 2018 (UTC)
I mean, FFS!! You told another editor, and I quote: "I wouldn't really expect much better from a Marxist". I wont warn you again, you'll be reported if you keep it up.Bacondrum (talk) 22:38, 15 December 2018 (UTC)
It is regrettable but not surprising that once the truth of the matter has been made clear-that what we say in the article is not supported by RS-you fail to recognize it and instead resort to threats. I see I have done all I can here, but somebody else will likely come along in a few months' time. Just a warning, you will continue to deal with disputes like this as long as you have this unsupported BLP-violating sentence in the lead. Display name 99 (talk) 22:18, 15 December 2018 (UTC)
@Display name 99: Absolute nonsense, the claim is supported by a huge number of RS, you just refuse to acknowledge some and completely ignore others, desperately clutching at straws - Calling a widely respected civil rights law firm like SPLC a leftist group is just affirming your bias, civil rights arn't left or right, unless you are some kind of extremist? You've made nothing clear, in fact it's obvious you are desperate to obfuscate. No hard feelings, mate. Bacondrum (talk) 22:39, 15 December 2018 (UTC)
Bacondrum, now look who's refusing to let it go. All I'll say is that the SPLC has relied on prominent left-wing public figures to smear a large number of Traditional Catholic and conservative organizations with which they disagree by labelling them "hate groups." That's all. Display name 99 (talk) 23:10, 15 December 2018 (UTC)
@Display name 99: hahahaha, you haven't come here pushing an agenda at all...It's a leftist conspiracy!! Soon you'll be crying fake news!!! Keep it up mate. It'll help arbitrators to get a measure of just how tendentious you're being. Again, put the stick down don't edit pages you are emotionally and politically invested in, it's gonna end badly. Bacondrum (talk) 23:53, 15 December 2018 (UTC)
Bacondrum, your edits don't make any sense. The specific apology that I added was not covered in the section up until then. All of the other comments from Yiannopoulos deal mostly with humor, but that is the most profound apology he gave, and I have to question whether your dislike for him influenced your decision to remove it in any way. As for the second part, you claimed that I added "the exact same text into another section." Take a look. The text is completely different. I also want to note that this article has a one-revert per 24 hour restriction and you're already past it. Please self-revert at least one of your two reverts or I will probably have to report it. Display name 99 (talk) 00:25, 16 December 2018 (UTC)
@Display name 99: So you're gonna add every apology he's ever made? That's not the purpose of Wikipedia, that is WP:NOTHERE. That's tendentious, trying to portray him in as positive light as possible. I care about accuracy, please be my guest and report. Then we really will be able to put this to bed. Bacondrum (talk) 02:22, 16 December 2018 (UTC)
Okay, so I checked and the apologies are different, so I apologise for the removal of the text "Concerning Donald Trump's decision to break from Barack Obama's practice of issuing a proclamation each year in honor of Gay Pride Month, Yiannopoulos said, "I don’t care about that. What I care about is the president protecting gay people from foreign policy, through strong borders, and stuff like that" under the assumption that it was repetitious. The first apology had been dicussed earlier in the section, and I still I feel these are tendentious edits, attempting to spin in a positive light, it's easy for people to say extreme thing and apologise afterwards, we're not here to run propaganda for the fella. Bacondrum (talk) 02:35, 16 December 2018 (UTC)
We're not here to run propaganda for him, just propaganda for the people who hate him and not allow an apology-the most sincere by far he has ever given-to be included in the text. That doesn't seem fair. We have all sorts of articles which include people making outrageous statements and then we quote their apologies afterwards and nobody seems to have a problem with it. It's sort of the standard thing that whenever somebody famous says something controversial, they usually apologize, and we cover both the original action or statement that triggered the apology (in greater detail) and the apology afterward. Yiannopoulos's first apology wasn't really much of an apology and this is pretty much the only one there is. There's no reason for not including it except to get rid of anything that might make him look less than an evil and reprehensible scoundrel. You've advised me to stay away from the article based off of what you interpret as support for Milo Yiannopoulos, but if you seriously dislike the guy so much that you can't be fair to him on his Wikipedia page, maybe it's time for you to take a step back. Display name 99 (talk) 03:13, 16 December 2018 (UTC)
Okay, I was over zealous on the apologies, I admit...mostly because you've displayed a clear and strong right-wing bias and you have a serious history of tendentious editing in this regard. We're all sick of tendentious editing on this page and the nonsense arguments about the veracity of the Nazi emails. Just be mindful of existing debates that have come to a close and consensus reached (numerous times) and be mindful to negate your inclinations and bias, please. Bacondrum (talk) 22:55, 16 December 2018 (UTC)
Very well. Because you admit to being over zealous on the apologies part, I'll go ahead and add that back in. I will likely continue editing the article in the future but unless brought up by somebody else in the future, will refrain from contesting the second paragraph in the lead despite strongly disagreeing with the way it is worded. Display name 99 (talk) 00:01, 17 December 2018 (UTC)
The citations on this page are completely off the wall. I gave the lede, early life, the first few paragraphs of his career and some other random sections a serious clean and it was just plain crazy - lots of mindless repetition of citations, heaps of assertions with piles and piles of citations, but not a single one that actually mentions the assertion they are referencing. Fixing this mess will take a heap of time, which most people don't have. If anyone feels like helping go through all this insanity it'd be greatly appreciated. Otherwise we could rewrite and cite some of the worst offending sections from scratch as some sections may just be too much of a dogs breakfast to even attempt to fix. Bacondrum (talk) 02:54, 21 December 2018 (UTC)
Mass changes reverted
Bacondrum, I reverted your mass changes. Take note that this is a controversial article and many things have been worked out. All of that is why the article currently has the WP:Discretionary sanctions notice -- Template:Editnotices/Page/Milo Yiannopoulos -- which states, in part, "You must not make more than one revert per 24 hours to this article. You must not reinstate any challenged (via reversion) edits without obtaining consensus on the talk page of this article."
I have challenged your changes. So do not revert them. Regarding what I have challenged... The lead, for example, is supposed to summarize the article per WP:Lead. So it should not be as short as you made it. Regarding excessive citations, well, I agree that we should not engage in citation overkill...unless three sources are needed or unless the several bundled sources are needed. We can see here that you added a number of sources yourself.
Flyer22 Reborn G'day, thanks for your contribution. In my opinion the lede is way too long, it comes off as an attempt to display the subject in the most negative light possible (the fact that Yianoppolous is a disgusting low life speaks for itself, we don't need to run a line or to frame it a certain way). I disagree that "many things have been worked out", very little has been worked out, I'm all for working out a consensus and I think the general gist of the lede is correct, but it needs to be worked on so it reads like an encyclopedia rather than an anti-nazi blog. Overall the content that is needed is there, but the page is all over the shop, many citations don't correspond to assertions, assertions are repeated etc etc etc, it's a really shitty page. The page on the whole is one of the worst I've seen, a dogs breakfast at best. The citations are a disgrace, it looks like it was cited by a first year humanities student who was coming down off acid. I respectfully, but strongly disagree that the lede should remain as is, but accept you reversion as being done in good faith (again, I think the man is vile...I just want the page to be well written and presented). So, what do we do now? get a third opinion? Obviously the citations need fixing, so I'm restoring the essential changes made there, they are a massive improvement by any measure, there's no argument to keep unrelated, repeated and unreliable sources. Cheers mate Bacondrum (talk) 03:31, 22 December 2018 (UTC)
BullRangifer I don't know where I got that idea from either, apologies. The citations however are a complete mess and definitely need a lot of work.
At least some of Bacondrum edits were improvements. We should remove unreliable sources, but we also shouldn't add unreliable source like this [9]. To Bacondrum's credit, it was subsequently removed here [10], but then it was re-added here [11]. Forbes contributor content is not reliable for BLPs, if anything. I'm not sure why this was removed [12]. This is good [13] (The Root is not a reliable source for BLPs.) This is an improvement [14]. We can't use Wikipedia to call people homophobes. I generally don't agree with bulk-removing source like this [15] or this [16].- MrX 🖋 13:11, 22 December 2018 (UTC)
Yes, I can totally see what you're saying, sorry if my editing was a bit confusing. The refs were such a dogs breakfast that I may have made a few mistakes, just trying to get the refs to resemble something manageable and reasonable.Bacondrum (talk) 21:17, 22 December 2018 (UTC) - At the end of the day I think the whole thing is messy and repeats itself. It needs to be made more succinct, the lead seems to go into too much detail when compared to pages about far more noteworthy individuals and the citations are all over the shop. Bacondrum (talk) 21:22, 22 December 2018 (UTC)
Some of your edits were improvements, but, per what I stated above, mass changes are not the way to go for this article. You can disagree that "many things have been worked out," but you are wrong on that, as the archives show. We don't remove things because we don't like it. We remove things based on Wikipedia's rules. And Wikipedia's rules about the lead, for example, are clear. There is no way that we should have a lead as short as your version. That the lead consists of controversial things is simply a reflection of the article/topic. Regarding what MrX stated, I'm not sure about use of The Root (although I'm aware of the publication and have seen it used in Wikipedia articles about black people), but MrX is a solid editor whose opinions are always worth considering. Same goes for BullRangifer. All I'm asking is that you take care not to engage in mass changes, and that you first seek WP:Consensus here on the talk page for changes that are likely to be contested. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 00:10, 23 December 2018 (UTC)
Thanks, I appreciate what you're saying, but you've no right or reason to ask me to restrict my editing, I've broken no rules what-so-ever - I was bold, you reverted, now we are discussing - I edit in good faith and unlike your good self I have never been blocked for breaking the rules, I don't intend to break the rules and I don't rubbish Wikipedia or other editors work on my user page, like you do....be bold, revert, debate - that's exactly how it works, you don't own the page, so don't talk like you have any authority over it. I act in good faith and I'm not breaking any rules, so suck it up. Bacondrum (talk) 09:18, 23 December 2018 (UTC)
Per Wikipedia WP:CAREFUL (an aspect of WP:BOLD) and Template:Editnotices/Page/Milo Yiannopoulos, I do have the right to ask you to restrict your editing. Like WP:CAREFUL states, "Changes to articles on complex, controversial subjects with long histories or active sanctions, or to Featured Articles and Good Articles, should be done with extra care. In many cases, the text as you find it has come into being after long and arduous negotiations between Wikipedians of diverse backgrounds and points of view. A careless edit to such an article might stir up a latent conflict, and other users who are involved in the page may become defensive. If you would like to make a significant edit—not just a simple copyedit—to an article on a controversial subject, it is a useful idea to first read the article in its entirety and skim the comments on the talk page. On controversial articles, the safest course is to be cautious and find consensus before making changes, but there are situations when bold edits can safely be made to contentious articles. Always use your very best editorial judgment in these cases and be sure to read the talk page." You are making huge cuts with no consideration for what might have been discussed/worked out before. Despite my suggestion in the #The article is way too long for a person whom history will likely forget in a few years section below that you first propose changes and note why you want the changes made, and that we should perhaps work on the content in a sandbox together, you aren't attempting to truly work with me or others. You are just chopping, chopping and chopping away. And, as made clear below, part of your chopping is based purely on feeling that Yiannopoulos's article should be much smaller because you personally don't find him notable enough.
As for my blocks, I suggest you read WP:Personal attacks and also read editors' block logs more carefully if you are just going to take a quick look at one and come to an unsubstantiated conclusion. The edit summaries for my block log clearly note that there was no wrongdoing on my part, that I was blocked for my own protection in one case, and that one block was unnecessary. On my user page/talk page, which you obviously took the time to look at, I clearly link to this statement by an editor, an administrator at that time, explaining that I did nothing wrong. And yet you still choose to try to tar me above? Sighs. And I have no idea what you mean by "you don't rubbish Wikipedia or other editors work on [your] user page" like I do, but you are off the mark anyway and that kind of talk does not belong on this talk page. And I know that administrator NeilN, who kept an eye on this article and kept things in line due the active sanctions on this article, hasn't been on Wikipedia in months, but go ahead and look at his blog log as well. Those blocks are mistakes. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 04:34, 24 December 2018 (UTC)
The article is way too long for a person whom history will likely forget in a few years
This article is excessively long by at least 50%. It goes into excruciating detail and direct quotes, which seem intended to shame the subject with his own deeds and words. The unintended effect is that it puts this has-been (my opinion) on a pedestal with along with other notable people. The world is already forgetting about this self-professed troll, and in a few years, his life will not even be a footnote in history. I think we need to consider seriously trimming the article down to a concise summary of the noteworthy aspects of his life, and leave the details of his self-promoting ideological trolling to the tabloids and the Gizmodo-esqu press. - MrX 🖋 13:47, 22 December 2018 (UTC)
Regardless of how we personally feel about the subject, we should be as impartial as we can be and give the topics regarding this person their WP:Due weight. There are editors who feel that some of our Wikipedia articles on Internet celebrities are excessive and that those celebrities aren't worth our time. But that's not how Wikipedia is supposed to work. Yes, we should avoid WP:Recentism, and there is material in this article that can be cut or downsized, but we shouldn't be editing as though we own a crystal ball regarding this person's noteworthiness or relevance. Instead of Bacondrum or others just cutting whatever they/we want, I suggest we propose cuts on this talk page. We can also work on a different version of the article in a sandbox and then propose that it replace the current version. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 00:22, 23 December 2018 (UTC)
Absolutely work towards consensus, but anyone can make good faith edits, that's how it works, no one owns the page. Milo Yiannopolous has achieved nothing compared to say Albert Einstein who's page is of comparable length, they are clearly not comparable in history's page - the amount of detail is absolutely giving undue weight, every little stupid venture, every failed attempt at council elections etc do not warrant mentioning, not even a sentence, perhaps in decades to come he will be more noteworthy, but now he is not much more than a loud mouth twat. I only mention that I think the guy is a creep so you understand I'm not trying to change the article to be less critical, but actually to read and feel encyclopedic, at the moment it feels like someone who hates him has been writing it. It really is a shocker of a page and I'm sure we can agree it needs a lot of work. More than happy to work on consensus to get there, but it can't stay as is. Yes, work on a consensus, but that can definitely involve being bold WP:BOLD, the page doesn't cut the mustard on the whole. I'm free to edit and be bold, I've acted 100% in good faith, no one owns the page. Bacondrum (talk) 01:48, 23 December 2018 (UTC)
WP:OWNING the page is not the point. What I stated in the #Mass changes reverted section above and this one are the points. It is not for us to state "Milo Yiannopolous has achieved nothing compared to say Albert Einstein," and so his Wikipedia article should be relatively smaller. That is not how Wikipedia works. In terms of movies, for example, Battlefield Earth is a poor film and did poorly at the box office, but you still see the detail that article has gotten -- that it's bigger than some articles for films that are critically acclaimed or otherwise generally well-received by critics, such as Enemy. The Battlefield Earth (film) article currently has WP:Featured article status. Per WP:Preserve, "Fix problems if you can, flag or remove them if you can't. Preserve appropriate content. As long as any facts or ideas would belong in an encyclopedia, they should be retained in Wikipedia. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia." For whatever topic, it matters not that the facts or ideas have gotten more attention in the media or other literature than Wikipedia editors think they deserve. What matters is that we cover the material with the weight it deserves. Maybe BullRangifer is willing to take a stab at what I mean. I'm all for material being cut due to being excessive or otherwise unnecessary (such as WP:DIARY issues), but not simply because editors feel that Yiannopoulos does not deserve to have an article as big as Albert Einstein's. WP:SIZE is a valid issue and is something we should look at, but keep in mind that WP:SIZE is about readable-prose size, and that a lot of subheadings can make an article look bigger than it actually is from the table of contents. You need to also keep in mind that WP:BLP applies to talk pages as well as to articles. So you should not be referring to Yiannopolous on this talk page by derogatory names. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 03:19, 23 December 2018 (UTC)
Sure maybe the size thing is not that important, but read the page, it's full of trifling details that are clearly not worth mentioning, seriously undue weight is given to all sorts of irrelevancy - the fact is that Milo is not noteworthy for much other than making statements that annoy people, he is noteworthy enough for a page, but not a dissection of the minutia of his life, every failed business, every controversy. At a glance about half the article is either not worth mentioning or repeats assertions made elsewhere on the page. This page is written as though it's trying to present him in the worst possible light, so I don't understand why someone defending the content would be a sook about him being called a twat. I'm entitled to edit and I will, so you can quit running that line. Yes, Wikipedia is an Encyclopedia, it is not a Soap box nor is it for reporting every thing some twit does. I know, lots of people get over zealous about pages they've edited, I've done it from time to time, but ideally one shouldn't. Bacondrum (talk) 05:03, 23 December 2018 (UTC)
The nature of Wikipedia is that it is based on notability standards, which make inclusive that which becomes media worthy and talked about. The size of the article does not reflect how important he is, but how much people are willing to get on board and edit his article combined with the availability of sources. People often point to the length of the article on lightsabers and compare it to articles which are shorter but more important from some other, usually academic, view point. The size of articles is not a gauge of their real world importance and there is no limit to the length of an article about a trivial subject, provided that sources exist to write about them. That being said you probably have grounds to trim some trivial details from the article, and wp:bold (or do it yourself) would be the policy which applies to that suggestion. Regarding some of the above. Civil (and blp) policies, which apply to talk pages advise against insulting or purely defamatory content, and as such it’s probably not a great idea to call the living subject of any article a little... what ever it was you said. Edaham (talk) 07:32, 23 December 2018 (UTC)
Fair enough, I didn't realise that twat was seen as offensive language (It's no more of a swear word than "bother" where I'm from), I'll avoid that in the future. I still believe the page is a mess, undue weight is given overall, it suffers from serious citation overkill, it just doesn't read like an encyclopedic entry, more like rolling news written by people with an axe to grind. Bacondrum (talk) 09:40, 23 December 2018 (UTC)
"The world is already forgetting about this self-professed troll, and in a few years, his life will not even be a footnote in history. "
I stand by what I stated. Your tone and approach to Wikipedia editing is somewhat out of line, as also made clear by what Edaham and Dimadick stated. But given that you've only been very actively editing as Bacondrum since 2017, it's understandable that you are not well-read on Wikipedia protocol. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 04:34, 24 December 2018 (UTC)
Okay, that's not getting anywhere
Can we move on from that matter for a minute and at least work out the citations? Surely we can agree that they need work? On my reading of the rules around citations there are a significant number of unreliable sources, and it is suffering from a massive citation overkill. Can we agree to work on the citations and improve them, and remove claims that rely on unreliable sources? Bacondrum (talk) 09:28, 23 December 2018 (UTC)
Here are my nominations for sources that should be removed as inferior for BLP purposes. If material relies solely on these sources, it should be removed as well:
I've removed them all, except two Buzzfeed articles due to context. There's still a lot of undue detail and the citations still need a fair bit of work - from a glance a significant number of citations don't actually reflect what is written on the page, but sorting that out is a more time consuming job. Thanks you. Bacondrum (talk) 23:45, 23 December 2018 (UTC)
I've reverted here because some of what is being deleted and why isn't really justified in the edit summaries. Removing references is different than removing the text. If references are poor and the text is worth keeping per WP:Due, as opposed to personal feelings, then we should try to replace them with better sources. WP:Preserve applies. Furthermore, some of the listed sources pass the WP:Reliable sources guideline. Where has TheWrap, which Bacondrum removed with this edit, been deemed unreliable at the WP:Reliable sources noticeboard? At Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 149#The Wrap (thewrap.com), for example, we can see editors stating that it's a reliable source. How is The Stranger an unreliable source? Where has Salon received the same ban as the Daily Mail (as seen via WP:DAILYMAIL, although that ban is currently being reassessed at the WP:Reliable sources noticeboard)? For conservative or other political sources, WP:CONTEXTMATTERS. PinkNews is an online newspaper LGBT source. Using The Advocate would better, but I don't see that PinkNews should automatically be avoided, for WP:BLPs or otherwise. Flyer22 Reborn (talk)
As per conversation with MrX I removed unreliable citations and claims attached to them, many of which are not noteworthy with or without a good citation. Yes I deleted a couple not on the list after checking the sources reputation for reliable reporting. The wrap sources its info from Breitbart and the Daily Caller, so it is not a reliable source. The stranger is a reliable source, but the assertion was not noteworthy. If parts of my edits are not up to scratch, then reinstate the parts you disagree with, but unrelieble sources are not permitted, they must go. At the end of the day the page is substandard in the extreme, it needs work, so lets work...you can't just sit there reverting in the hope you'll be able to keep your preferred version of the page. In terms of my opinion or feeling about Yiannopolous, I'm acting 100% in good faith, I want to improve this dogs breakfast of a page, If I was being driven by my feelings about the man I'd be fine with the page as it was: a tendentiously edited page bordering on being a Milo hate page...but that's not what we're here to do - Wikipedia is not a Soap Box. Can we hold off on reverting like you've got an axe to grind with me and wait to hear from MrX, he/she is obviously a far better editor than either of us and far more reasonable. Bacondrum (talk) 05:05, 24 December 2018 (UTC)
Once again, you removed more than just the sources. And, on Wikipedia, sources are only unreliable if they fail the WP:Reliable sources guideline. Beyond that, context matters. A source is not unreliable simply because you deem it so. I have no preferred version of the page, except for a bit of content in the "Paedophilia remarks" section that was worked out via an RfC. Your edit changed that material and made it so that the "Margaret Hartmann of New York magazine additionally acknowledged the definitions for hebephilia and ephebophilia" part is included without first mention of hebephilia and ephebophilia; it was confusing flow. I have barely edited the article. I am simply a stickler for following protocol. WP:Preserve is a policy. You state that you are not being driven by your feelings for the man, and yet, above, you were suggesting that his article should be significantly downsized because he's not notable enough to you. Your edit summary seen here (which I responded to) suggests that you are trying to present him in a better light. You are not familiar with my editing, only blocks you misjudged me on, and yet are stating that "MrX, he/she is obviously a far better editor than either of us and far more reasonable." Sighs. My years and years of Wikipedia edits, dealing with BLP articles and the like, and getting articles to WP:Good or WP:Featured article status, speak for themselves. Suggesting that you discuss potential significant changes first, per WP:CAREFUL and WP:CAUTIOUS, is not being unreasonable. I'm not advocating that we keep unreliable sources. I'm stating that we should be removing material carefully and only if it's not an article improvement (based on rules, not personal feelings) and that removing sources should be based on the rules (not personal opinions) as well. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 05:55, 24 December 2018 (UTC)
Regarding this, with my followup note here, what don't you understand about Template:Editnotices/Page/Milo Yiannopoulos? It clearly states, "You must not reinstate any challenged (via reversion) edits without obtaining consensus on the talk page of this article." You should revert yourself. I would hate to take this matter to WP:ANI, where I will not only note your violation of the sanction aspect, but also your "not as important as Albert Einstein" mindset, WP:BLP talk page violations and WP:Personal attacks. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 04:53, 24 December 2018 (UTC)
For the record, the list of inferior sources that I compiled was not intended to suggest that they should be all be blindly removed, nor does my opinion have any more weight than other experienced editors. Here are my comments on Bacondrum's edits:
[17] - This seems to be a good edit. Someone found some inferior sources, including a few putatively conservative sources, to synthesize a conclusion. It appears to be classic WP:SYNTH.
[18] - Some of this is beneficial, but some is not. Some important detail and sources were removed. The Wrap is considered a reliable source. The other reliable sources should have remained because they are need to support very controversial material.
[19] - I don't know what the intent here is because there's no edit summary. Removing a good source does not seem beneficial.
[20] - I agree with this edit. Salon is not a good source for BLPs.
[21] - While The Tab may not be a great source for BLPs, in this case it was the subjects own words, so this edit is not beneficial.
[22] - I don't see a problem with this edit. It's supported by WP:BLPSOURCES.
[23] - This edit seems fine. It removed an unnecessary source.
[24] - This edit is good. The Blaze is not a reliable source, especially for BLPs.
[25] - With the possible exception fo the first chunk of material, this edit seems fine.
I would point out that the Buzzfeed News source has repeatedly been confirmed a reliable source within the context of the article, however much various conservatives, paleoconservatives, gamergators, nazi sympathizers and random trolls would like it removed. Simonm223 (talk) 16:15, 24 December 2018 (UTC)
This gamergator does not see any Nazis. I'm definitely not a gamergator, or those other things. But you're correct, BuzzFeed is a reliable source.- MrX 🖋 17:20, 24 December 2018 (UTC)
MrX, above you stated, "If material relies solely on these sources, it should be removed as well." Yes, you added a note about BuzzFeed and a question mark for The Stranger, but it's clear that Bacondrum felt that all of those sources and a good portion of the associated content should be removed. Regarding Salon, I don't see that it's generally been deemed unsuitable at the reliable sources noticeboard. Looking at the archives on it at the reliable sources noticeboard, I see mixed comments about it, such as preferably using WP:In-text attribution for it when we use it. See, for example, Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 200#Salon.com. So on what grounds should we state that it generally should not be used for BLPs or never used for BLPs? If it's making a controversial claim that most sources disagree with, I can seeing not using it. But even then, it might be used solely for the author's opinion. When the RfC was conducted, no one objected to Salon specifically for the following: "Matthew Rozsa of Salon.com wrote that although Yiannopoulos is technically correct in distinguishing between paedophilia, hebephilia, and ephebophilia, the practice he was accused of promoting 'is still illegal in most parts of the Western world.'" So I don't agree with this Salon removal. As for conservative sources such as The Blaze, this is where WP:CONTEXTMATTERS and WP:BIASEDSOURCES come in. WP:BIASEDSOURCES begins by stating, "Wikipedia articles are required to present a neutral point of view. However, reliable sources are not required to be neutral, unbiased, or objective. Sometimes non-neutral sources are the best possible sources for supporting information about the different viewpoints held on a subject." It also talks about in-text attribution. Keep in mind that because Yiannopoulos is conservative, a number of conservative sources are going to cover him. When editors were asked in the aforementioned RfC why we should include the "Editorials in conservative media" part, Dimadick stated, "Yiannopoulos is a conservative and he is being denounced by fellow conservatives over his comments. It matters. TheBlaze may be on the fringe side, but The American Conservative seems to have a decent reputation and does not simply push conspiracy theories."
The other edits or sources... Regarding this edit, how are we deciding that the "Editorials in conservative media" part is synthesis? I see text directly attributed to sources. Also see what I stated above about the RfC. Regarding edits like this, I'm fine with removing Metro and Rise Miami News. Regarding this, I'm fine with removing unnecessary sources, but, per what I stated above, we shouldn't be removing The Stranger on the notion that it's unreliable. It's not. Regarding this, I mentioned The Blaze above. I don't mind it being removed, seeing as it's not needed (including for the text seen in that link), but it might be okay to use in a "context matters" case...such as for the "Editorials in conservative media" part that used to be in the "Paedophilia remarks" section. Regarding this, I already addressed the Salon aspect. We should state "widely condemned" or "widely criticized" because he was, but, per WP:Claim and the fact that child sexual abuse is not pedophilia, we should not state "Yiannopoulos later denied supporting paedophilia." We should also include the "characterised his comments as supportive of paedophilia or pederasty" part that was in the article. This aspect was covered by the following: "Editorials in conservative media, including National Review, The Blaze, Townhall, and The American Conservative have characterised his comments as supportive of paedophilia or pederasty." I think it was more than conservative media that characterized it that way, though. And going back to this edit, Yiannopoulos's comments were also seen as supportive of child sexual abuse. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 08:44, 25 December 2018 (UTC)
Flyer22 Reborn, I hear what you're say about Salon. In the past six years of my editing controversial articles in the American politics space, I have seen Salon rejected as a source a few times, but certainly it should be usable with attribution, assuming WP:DUEWEIGHT is followed. I'll accept that you know more about The Stranger than I do. I agree that "characterised his comments as supportive of paedophilia or pederasty" and "widely criticised" are fine, but "Media personalities across the political spectrum condemned Yiannopoulos's original comments..."is not, unless we can find a source that substantively says that, as opposed to concocting it ourselves. I don't feel strongly enough about the other points to argue against them. I've already made the edits that I do feel strongly about, but I hope we can continue to dialog so that we can improve the article.- MrX 🖋 13:28, 25 December 2018 (UTC)
Yeah, one could view the "media personalities" sentence as a topic sentence backed up by the rest of the paragraph...if that's the case, similar to what WP:Weasel words states about a topic sentence. You know, along the lines of "Many people objected to [so and so]." But it's better off supported by a source that uses that wording or similar, or better off reworded.
So where do you think we should go from here, other than re-adding the aforementioned pieces, replacing or removing poor sources or unnecessary or undue text? If you want to go ahead and start replacing or removing poor sources or unnecessary or undue text, feel free. Any contested edit can always be reverted and we can come back here to the talk page. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 22:47, 26 December 2018 (UTC)
No mention of his views on trans?
I noticed that nothing is mentioned in neither the Controversies section or the LGBT section about his views on trans, which is a bit odd, consideing that it is one of the views of his that has roughled quite some feathers, especially within the mentioned and affected group. Below I have therefore attached some articles treating these views and statements of his included his speech at the University of Delaware in 2016 ( which is also avaible on Youtube ), offering some material which I thought could be included in the LGBT section Wikipedia article.
Display name 99, I see that you've been adding material to the article. Per what has been stated above, make sure that you are not going overboard with material. The article already has lot in it, and there are WP:Due weight, WP:DIARY and WP:SIZE matters to consider with expansions. If text can be summarized without cutting out important detail, we should do that. No need to WP:Ping me if you reply. This article is on my WP:Watchlist. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 02:43, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
Thank you for the note. I understand that Wikipedia articles are not supposed to run above a certain length (100 kb per WP: Page length), and are discouraged from running over 90kB. This article is at 41kB and way below that. I understand that the article should never be that long because the subject is not nearly as notable as the people whose biographies approach that length. In order to even get it close, we would have to include every detail about his life and views we could find, no matter how trivial, from whatever sources we could find, no matter how reliable.
I agree that this is not a good idea. But most of the statements that I've quoted or summarized are simply examples of the sort of things that Yiannopoulos has said over and over in various lectures and interviews, and probably, although I haven't read them, his books. They're important for understanding who he is. Feminists are one of his main targets. He's ridiculed them countless times. So I think that it makes sense to have four short to medium-sized paragraphs summarizing some (but far from all) of the sometimes quite outrageous things that he has said about various women, and feminists in particular. He used to trash Islam pretty much every chance he got. Therefore, it's imperative on us to devote some portion of the article, however small, to discussing his views on the religion and its followers. But that's something that we somehow didn't do until I added an Islam section very recently. The whole question was ignored except for a couple of passing statements that failed to go into detail. It's clearly a problem when you have TEN paragraphs talking about his pedophilia comments but hardly devote a sentence to describing Yiannopoulos's views on a religion that he has ridiculed and sharply criticized over and over. Basically, while I understand your concerns about going into unnecessary detail, I don't think that my edits so far have crossed the line. Quite to the contrary, they have filled in a lot of empty details and helped mitigate what was probably a situation of WP:Undue weight favoring in-depth coverage of a couple of individual controversies at the expense of his opinions on issues that he spent 2-3 years advocating while in the public eye. If you respond, please ping me. Thanks. Display name 99 (talk) 03:51, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
Display name 99, thanks for explaining your view. Regarding controversies, we shouldn't decide on what are controversies ourselves. The sources should be clear that the matters are controversies. A lot has been dedicated to the child sexual abuse and pedophilia matter because it received a lot of media attention and impacted Yiannopoulos in ways his other questionable and/or controversial statements have not. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 05:14, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
I wasn't talking about deciding what are controversies. The pedophilia comments and the Buzzfeed neo-Nazi incident are clearly controversies which the article devoted a disproportionate amount of attention to compared to his remarks on other topics. True, these are certainly worthy of significant attention, but he would not have become famous in the first place if not for his other notable and controversial statements. It's best we don't forget about those. Display name 99 (talk) 14:18, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
Display name 99, given the level of attention the pedophilia/child sexual abuse remarks received and how they impacted his career, how does the article devote a disproportionate amount of attention to that matter compared to his remarks on other topics? As for deciding on what are controversies, I was simply stating that we should not call a matter a controversy or list it under the "Controversies" section unless reliable sources have called the matters controversies. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 05:42, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
I didn't say anything different about controversies than what you just said. I think that you misinterpreted my first post. I don't quite think that there's a disproportionate amount of attention given to the underage sex comments now, or at least it isn't as bad as it was before I started editing. But the reason why Yiannopoulos is well known in the first place isn't due to his comments on underage sex, but his remarks on Islam, feminism, etc. So clearly, if we're going to devote 10 paragraphs to the sexual abuse stuff, we should devote at least one paragraph to his comments on Islam (there were zero before), and perhaps more than just two or three to his views on women and feminism. Display name 99 (talk) 19:03, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
Display name 99, I didn't misinterpret your first post. As for how Yiannopoulos came to be notable vs. his pedophilia/child sexual abuse remarks, including the pedophilia/child sexual abuse content and how much of it to include should not be a matter of what he initially came to be notable for. For example, we all know that Harvey Weinstein did not initially come to be notable for his sexual abuse scandals; he was already notable before that. But his name is now primarily associated with sexual abuse scandals (including his own) and a social movement related to the scandals. WP:Notability is a guideline about including (creating an article for) someone who is notable. WP:Due weight is a policy about how much weight to give a topic within an article. It is easy to see that the pedophilia/child sexual abuse matter should get more weight than a number of, or all of, Yiannopoulos's others controversies. That's not to state that we shouldn't look at trimming a bit of the pedophilia/child sexual abuse material. And I'm not stating that Yiannopoulos is more well-known for the pedophilia/child sexual abuse matter, but it is his most prominent controversy, costing him more than any controversy he has had, and is what many people now know him for. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 10:16, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
@Display name 99: Thanks for your contributions, I think you've improved the article significantly. When I look at articles written about him over the years I find he is discussed far more often in regard to his wanton trolling, being no platformed by universities, his obnoxious and deliberate displays of misogyny, of homophobia and Islamophobia...or just being a generally obnoxious and antagonising people. If you don't go looking for the pedophile stuff it's not that prominent, it's definitely not what he is known for, it was just a couple more comments in a long line of offensive outbursts. I think you are right to give due weight to other sections, the pedophile section is given way too much attention in comparison IMO. (though I think Yiannopoulos is given way too much weight in general and that this page pretty crap, it's essentially a list of wrong doings and suffers from severe recentism). Bacondrum (talk) 22:15, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
No one has to go looking for the pedophilia/child sexual abuse stuff. It's that prominent with regard to his name. Like the lead states, "following the release of the video, Yiannopoulos was forced out of his position at Breitbart, his invitation to speak before the Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC) was revoked, and a contract to publish his autobiography with Simon & Schuster was cancelled." That is a huge impact. The matter is without a doubt the most controversial and prominent matter regarding him at this point in time. It cost him his job. All of that is why it deserves a spot in the lead as opposed to most of his other controversies. Although, per WP:Lead, his controversies should be summarized in the lead. The most significant ones anyway. WP:Recentism does not mean that his most recent and most significant controversy should only get a small piece in the article. And that's not how WP:Due weight works. It is quite clear that the pedophilia/child sexual abuse matter reached far more people than all of his other controversial matters. It is definitely what he is most known for to many (note I stated "many," not "most" or "all") people today. You speak of the article being "essentially a list of wrong doings," and yet have commended Display name 99 for adding more wrongdoings. Given how you went about chopping this article and your "essentially a list of wrong doings" statement, I don't think your latest post truly has anything to do with Display name 99, but rather your need to disagree with me per our earlier arguments above. Well, I never stated that Display name 99 should not give due weight to other topics in the article. I was clear about my concern above. And, yes, per above, we already know how you feel about the article. Editors have already challenged your "Yiannopoulos is given way too much weight" view. And that view was challenged based on the rules. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 10:16, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
Thank you both for your comments. Of course the sex comments are extremely important. But I think it's also wrong to say that they're now somehow marginalized or that the other content which I have added is not important. People who heard about Yiannopoulos through the child sex comments and then find themselves coming to this article may want to find out more about who he is or how he became well known in the first place. It's our job to provide them a basic outline, and I think that's what I've done. In spite of my expansions, there is still more devoted to the underage sex remarks than to any single topic under the "Political views" section. If you add in the time spent covering the various accusations made against him of neo-Nazism, you'll see that the amount of space spent discussing the political and cultural positions that he advocated during his 2-3 years in the spotlight and occasional media appearances since then is just about equal to the amount of time spent covering these two scandals. So what exactly is the problem?
Flyer, considering that you said that you aren't opposed to me giving due weight to other topics, I think we can probably close this discussion out by agreeing that the article should devote attention to the child sex and neo-Nazi controversies while also providing important details about the other things that he has said. Right now, there is probably a little more that could be added to some areas, but I think that it's about right. Display name 99 (talk) 21:39, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
Display name 99, I didn't state or imply that the pedophilia/child sexual abuse stuff is now marginalized. My "10:16, 13 February 2019 (UTC)" response concerns your comment about how Yiannopoulos came to be notable and your earlier comment about the pedophilia/child sexual abuse material having the space it does. I noted why it's understandable that it would get more space than a number of, or all of, his other controversies. Not all controversies or other content should get equal space; that is my point on that. You asked, "So what exactly is the problem?" My initial post in this section is advisory in tone, and so are the followup comments made by me. I clearly did not complain about your additions. You even stated, "Thank you for the note." Wikipedia talk pages are not always about article complaints, of course. They are also about developing the article minus complaints, how to develop the article, and making sure that editors are on the same page. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 01:15, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
Display name 99, it appeared that you were clear about my initial points made in my first paragraph above in this section. As you can see, we got into other matters, including coverage of the the pedophilia/child sexual abuse material. If you don't see my point why the pedophilia/child sexual abuse material has the space it has in the article, I don't know what else to state on that. As for "dropping this," it is not like we were discussing a problem with your edits. Ceasing continuing this discussion? Yes, there is no need to continue it. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 02:50, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
Semi-protected edit request on 9 March 2019
This edit request to Milo Yiannopoulos has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
The reference to the so called "fines" issued by the Victorian Government is factually wrong. One cannot be fined for police work. The Victorian Police and Victorian Government have quite cynically attempted to bill Milo Yiannopulos for tens of thousands of dollars, but they know that they cannot prove liability of any form and they know that they would be unable to find a court willing to enforce this billing practice. The courts are open to the Victorian Government if they believe that they have an actionable matter to pursue against Milo Yiannopoulos. They have not pursued this course of action. There is no "fine". 134.148.171.27 (talk) 06:16, 9 March 2019 (UTC)
BullRangifer, there are some things I'd like to mention regarding the changes made to the article. I'd appreciate it if you'd stop your rude and sarcastic edit summaries. There's no reason for them, and I'd thought you would have learned your lesson the first time when it turned out that the content that I removed was indeed replicated almost word for word in the preceding paragraph, just as I said. But apparently not. Anyhow, I didn't make any assumptions and I did check the source. The text, which was written as part of a draft of the book Dangerous, was marked as unclearly written and needing revision by Yiannopoulos's editor, as the source reflects. Did you read it and find this out, or are you just telling me to check the source without actually having looked at it yourself? I agree with the editor that the meaning is not entirely clear, and I therefore think it's best not to include it, especially since it probably didn't make it into the final version of Yiannopoulos's book anyway. I haven't read it so I can't say for sure. I'm the one who added the text to begin with, by the way. Display name 99 (talk) 20:54, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
Polemicist
Lead says he's a "polemicist". Maybe internal link that to something, I doubt everyone reading will know what that is. --77.173.90.33 (talk) 22:16, 2 May 2019 (UTC)
Why isn't alt-right in the infobox on the... right? It says cultural libertarianism, but Milo appears to belong to the alt-right so I imagine that should be there too. Cleopatran Apocalypse (talk) 01:35, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
Cleopatran Apocalypse, the reason is WP:NPOV. Yiannopoulos identified himself as part of the alt-right early on but later distanced himself from it. Quite a few people see him as alt-right, but Yiannopoulos's rejection of the label and the lack of total unanimity mean that it wouldn't be appropriate to identify him as such. The term alt-lite was created to refer to people like him, the kinds who are known for rather extreme right-wing rhetoric but who avoid explicit appeals to race or white nationalism in their speeches and writings. Display name 99 (talk) 23:10, 2 May 2019 (UTC)
Thanks for the response. Then I guess I have to ask, does self-definition trump RS? For example, if he is called alt-right by many RS, is it sufficient that not every single RS calls him that, and that he prefers a less loaded term like 'alt-lite'?Cleopatran Apocalypse (talk) 04:18, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
Cleopatran Apocalypse, there are many reliable sources with articles which call him alt-right. However, most of these articles were published during the time of the 2016 election, when Yiannopoulos had yet to distance himself from the movement. There are some that continue to identify him by that label, but many of these publications are left-leaning and it's not enough to counter his denial. A sentence in the lead of the alt-right page on Wikipedia says, "Individuals aligned with many of the alt-right's ideas but not its white nationalism have been termed "alt-lite"." For me, that's clearly where Yiannopoulos fits. I've watched many of his lectures and read a few of his articles, and although he shares some ideas in common with alt-right leaders, I have never heard him make explicit appeals to white nationalism. Display name 99 (talk) 17:22, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
What makes one "fierce critic" of religion? Who else labels him that way? Can you, all of a sudden, become "fierce critic" of Shinto, or Sikhism, or Buddhism, or chose any not mentioned? Can you seriously accept such label, and say that his diatribes constitute "critique" of Islam, isn't that clear misleading or, maybe, polite obfuscation or, even quiet whitewashing? Since when we refer to every single expression of toxic animosity toward particular religion by every troll or "provocateur" out there as "critique", anyway? --౪ Santa ౪99°04:49, 3 June 2019 (UTC)
Far right?
Okay, why is he now described as far right? If I recall correctly he was previously described as right-wing. It doesn't seem to be explained in the talk as I hoped. Thanks, trainsandtech (talk) 07:36, 14 July 2019 (UTC)
I didn't make the edit and I'm not opposing its removal per se, but I'd advocate finding a reliable source that makes the claim instead of removing it. I'm sure there are plenty, the claim is obviously true. He's obviously far-right (I'd personally say he's further to the lunatic extreme-right), I simply can't see any reasonable person coming to a different conclusion, the body of the article makes it clear that he's on the far-right, he associates with neo-Nazi's etc, he espouses their rhetoric. Bacondrum (talk) 07:42, 14 July 2019 (UTC)
Regarding this revert of @Bacondrum: I support shrinking length of the lede, but I am concerned that this is too drastic, and ends up being a form of whitewashing. We should use the lede to indicate why Yiannopoulos is notable, and he is now, per a huge number of sources, notable for his associating with specific extremist ideologies. He may be notable to his fans for his "ridicule" of yadda yadda, but he is notable to sources for significantly different reasons. By conflating these two aspects of his notability we are implying something which is not supported by sources. I think redundancy is preferable to that, although clearly there is room for improvement. In a bit I will edit towards a compromise with the understanding that there is broad consensus for trimming, but I wanted to post to talk first to explain my concerns. Grayfell (talk) 00:53, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
I have made an attempt to trim the lede while still summarizing some of the points raised in the body. I also moved the very long refs to the reflist template. This makes the dif harder to read, unfortunately, but it makes the article easier to edit in the long run. Grayfell (talk) 01:44, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
I'm not trying to whitewash, to be completely honest I think the dude (Redacted), but that's my POV and I do not let it influence my edits, please assume good faith. THE ONLY THING I'm interested in is a good article - this is not a good article, it's clunky, heaps of dodgy sources, undue detail, reads like a tendentiously edited battlefield etc. Just to start, this lede has clearly been tendentiously edited and should not repeat an entire paragraph from the body verbatim - thanks for addressing that repeat paragraph. I'd advise all to read about the WP:MOSLEAD — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bacondrum (talk • contribs) 05:48, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
I apologize if my explanation was too aggressive. As I said, my concern is that by not mentioning his ties to Nazism, etc. in the lede, we would be misrepresenting the reason sources are discussing his work. Hopefully more editors and more perspectives will help to address the many underlying issues the article has. Grayfell (talk) 09:19, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
Considering his career trajectory has pointed toward more direct embroilment with far-right political groups and nazi groups, rather than away from such issues, I'd suggest the information is critical to stay in the lede notwithstanding any given editor's POV. Simply put, Yiannopoulos is notable at this point mostly for getting involved with a bunch of Nazis. Simonm223 (talk) 14:05, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
Thanks, and yes I totally agree that he is generally notable for his connections to Nazism and the Alt-right. I just feel like the article contains a lot of undue detail, it also suffers from citation over kill, like heaps of these new fringe people and movements the page reads like it's been tendentiously edited back and forth by supporters and detractors, it's a bit of a dogs breakfast. For example, why do we dissect all his self published books? Great writers like Gogol and Kafka just have a dot point bibliography, Noam Chomsky just has a link to his bibliography and that doesn't go into the detail of the books - giving Yiannopoulos' self published guff, most of which has been canned by critics and sold poorly, such attention is completely undue IMO. Same with the section on his Australian tour, why stop there, why not dissect every controversial tour he has done? They've all caused trouble and attracted protests, why single out the Australian tour? Most other sections go into excessive detail. Bacondrum (talk) 21:32, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
Like so many contemporary far-right pages, I reckon this article could use a real clean-out. First, reduce the citations to quality ones, no need for lists of up to 10 citations for one assertion. Second, clean out the large amount of undue detail. Third, remove weasely language, improve the prose, it reads terribly. I'd happily help do it if a clean out is supported. Bacondrum (talk) 22:25, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
Regarding this (follow up note here), like I stated, that his pedophilia/child sexual abuse commentary lost him his job and had other impacts on his career belongs in the lead per WP:LEAD. And it is talked about lower in the article. Simonm223's above statement that he is notable "mostly for getting involved with a bunch of nazis"? We can look at reliable sources for why he is mostly notable. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 15:58, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
Flyer22 Reborn My contributions are problematic? I'm not edit warring or any other problematic behavior. Stop acting like you own the page and assume good faith, failing that I will not be engaging with you at all. Bacondrum (talk) 21:25, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
Regarding the above, this and this, I think I should just take you to WP:ANI. Out of the two of us, the only one who has been problematic at this article is you. WP:Lead is clear about what it should cover. And yet time and time again, you try to cut it in ways that do not adhere to WP:Lead and claim you aren't trying to whitewash. And you want me to assume good faith? Assume good faith after how you acted last time? Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 23:25, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
And common sense: Why would we mention that he was permanently banned from Twitter due to harassment and permanently banned from Facebook, and not mention that he lost his position at Breitbart due to the pedophilia/child sexual abuse commentary controversy? Sighs. The material will be restored to the lead. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 23:41, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
Flyer22 Reborn, it seems premature to rush Bacondrum and this case off to WP:ANI. While his cuts are of unclear value, this disagreement is still one over substance where good faith can be assumed. Let’s reach some consensus rather than running to admins. Jgalt87 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 07:52, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
Proposed addition to "Association with Neo-Nazism and the alt-right" section
Hi all, in light of this article, I would welcome people's opinions on whether we should add the following material to the bottom of the section entitled 'Association with Neo-Nazism and the alt-right'
"In July 2019, Yiannopoulos spoke to a group of about 150 supporters of Alternative for Deutschland (AfD) in Berlin. Yiannopoulos urged attendees to rediscover the “heroic masculine virtues so mocked by today’s timid, weak, feminized German culture"." Jono1011 (talk) 16:51, 5 July 2019 (UTC)
I'd also like input on including Milo saying this: “White pride, white nationalism, white supremacy isn’t the way to go ... The way to go is reminding them and yourselves that you should be aspiring to values and to ideas.”[1]Konroh (talk) 04:18, 12 July 2019 (UTC)
Adding brief snippets of longer speeches is a POV disaster waiting to happen. In this case, you aren't doing that, the source is. Unfortunately, the source is not reliable. While Huffington Post is open to debate, the established consensus is that HuffPost contributors is generally not reliable. - SummerPhDv2.016:29, 12 July 2019 (UTC)
Hi, I don't reckon the Jewish Journal cuts the mustard for a claim about Nazism on a BLP article. It's a local, independant, non-profit outlet with a small readership...it may be a great paper, but there's no way to verify the quality of its journalism. Bacondrum (talk) 01:02, 14 July 2019 (UTC)
Thanks for your contributions, in light of people's feedback, I'd agree that the addition I had originally suggested should not be included in the main article. Jono1011 (talk) 09:49, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
I attempted to cite a Breitbart article and wasn't able to because the website is blacklisted. I understand that Breitbart is not considered a reliable source but I was simply using it as a reference to an addition I was trying to make involving things that Milo had said within the article. In other words, it was the fact that Milo wrote the article that I was attempting to demonstrate by citing it, not that the information in it was necessarily accurate. Is there a way around this or do we just have to avoid quotes from his Breitbart articles that haven't been quoted by a secondary source? — Preceding unsigned comment added by The Fifth Dwarfer (talk • contribs) 11:01, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
IMO, the issue here is (essentially) cherry-picking and the technical issue (not being able to cite Breitbart) is a side point.
Notable people generally have said a lot of things that are easily available from primary sources. If Wikipedia were to allow editors to pull whatever quote they would like from a primary source (interview with the subject, speech they gave, article they wrote, etc.), some articles would quickly be overrun by attempts to build up or tear down the subject. Pick a notable politician and you can make them sound like the savior of the word or the destroyer by selectively quoting how thrilled they were the time they saved a child from certain death or how thrilled they were to kick a child in the face.
The solution to the cherry-picking problem also avoids the technical issue in this case. If Yiannopoulos said something (in an article he wrote, a speech, whatever) that is a meaningful part of his biography, an independent reliable source will discuss it. - SummerPhDv2.017:43, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
In an earlier section that I made [[26]], I brought up that the section on his views regarding gay, bi and trans lacked mentioning of his speech at the university of Delaware that caused quite a ruffling of feathers.
I therefore now added this information as no one else had. Okama-San (talk) 18:35, 30 August 2019 (UTC)
Hi, I removed your recent addition, I get why you added it and thank you for your contribution, but we are not reporters, we don't need to report every obscene or stupid thing the man says, it's all undue. The endless quoting and reporting on this article should be pruned back to the most notable and widely reported, not expanded to include everything he has ever said that caused offense...we'd be here forever. I hope you understand where I'm coming from, his list of offensiveness is endless, it's his stick to offend people. Bacondrum (talk) 00:06, 1 September 2019 (UTC)
Grayfell, I am troubled by your recent removal of quotes from Yiannopoulos. Your edit summary does not make things any clearer. You refer to these quotes as "political hot takes," even though one of them is a quote about himself and his own sexuality, which clearly has nothing to do at all with politics. You also say that "because he is not an expert on anything in particular," the quotes "need context from reliable, independent sources." All of them are covered already in reliable sources. Furthermore, I wonder what him supposedly not being an expert on anything means for the other quotes. Are you saying that we should not represent his views because he is stupid and ill-informed? If so, this would be a clear case of POV-editing. Display name 99 (talk) 23:42, 31 August 2019 (UTC)
Please assume good faith and don't accuse other editors of POV-editing - focus on content. I personally agree with the removals. There is so much undue detail on this page, and those quotes were undue IMO. They are "political hot takes" being a gay homophobe and a Jewish antisemite is all part of his shtick. I personally think more than half the article is undue detail, removing excessive and undue quotes is a good start. This article suffers from the kind of back and forth left-right editing that many alt-right and related articles seem to suffer from, it needs substantial pruning. Bacondrum (talk) 23:58, 31 August 2019 (UTC)
This seems like a discussion worth having, so I have no problem explaining why I made this edit. This isn't about other articles, although it's not a unique problem. This edit was specific to this topic:
Xtools gives a prose estimate of 46k, which seems far too long for the depth of available sources. We don't need to talk about splitting the article or anything, but if average readers spend a full half-hour reading this article from start to end, (per WP:LENGTH) are they going to get a better understanding than if the article were tightened up and some of these details were omitted?
As for more specific reasons, he is uncontroversial a pundit, not a topic expert. By his own admission he was unqualified to write on technology, and since then none of his work has been published as journalism by any reputable outlets. As a political pundit and social media personality, he is prolific in stating things about politics, and details about himself. There are no lack of sources for his opinions, but verifiability doesn't guarantee inclusion. We do need to evaluate why a source is mentioning these details. If it is to establish context for some detail which the article already explains, we don't need to gild the lily by expounding on it. If multiple sources repeat different quotes to explain the same point, we don't need to compile all of them just to be sure.
As for his own sexuality, the part I removed says nothing of substance which wasn't already explained in the same paragraph. He would choose not to be gay if he could -that's really all this amounts to, so why expand on it? What information does this provide to readers? His elaboration on how hypothetical, some non-existent treatment might possibly influence his career sure seems like trivia. Does that make sense?
His comments as "grand marshal" are literally an attention-seeking PR stunt, since he was speaking on behalf of the parade. He says lots of things, after all. If there is some reason why this particular statement is encyclopedically significant, let's hear it.
Regarding his Zionism, this is about WP:DUE more than anything. I'm not really sure why his position on this matters either way, but I am curious to hear explanations why this is encyclopedically significant. Grayfell (talk) 00:12, 1 September 2019 (UTC)
Grayfell, I am willing to accept removal of the statement about his own homosexuality after checking and realizing that a similar statement already existed in the article, especially considering the fact that the LGBT views section is easily the longest under the "Political views" section. Concerning his comments on straight pride, if that is a PR stunt, and PR stunts don't deserve extensive discussion, then just about anything that a political pundit or politician says in public would also be a PR stunt. The straight pride march is something that received substantial coverage in the media, and so I think that quoting Yiannopoulos's thoughts on being named as one of the featured speakers is worthwhile, although I'm willing to discuss shortening the quote if that will lead to consensus. His comments on Zionism are encyclopedically significant because they were quoted and discussed in context by a reliable and independent source, and are worthy of inclusion because there are no other instances in the article where similar sentiments from him are represented. If it's worth including that Yiannopoulos supports Israel and favors the assassination of Hamas leaders, why should we ignore him when he is shown in the exact same source to have criticized Israel for certain things? Display name 99 (talk) 00:25, 1 September 2019 (UTC)
Bacondrum, this is certainly a substantial change from your views six months ago. I did not accuse someone of POV editing. I only said that it would be POV editing if their edit summary meant what I thought it might. I'm still not convinced that most this detail is undue. The removal of the quotes about Israel and anti-Semitism are the most blatantly unjustified in my opinion, because for all of the other quotes, we at least record him expressing somewhat related opinions elsewhere in the article, but the parts of the Zionism section which were removed contained the only criticisms of Israel or criticisms of those making anti-Semitic allegations that we had in the entire article, and the result of their removal is that the article represents Yiannopoulos's views less fully and well-balanced than it otherwise would. The length of this article in prose size is 44 kB. WP:Article size caps articles at 99 kB. We have plenty of space left until this article becomes longer than Wikipedia standards would permit. It's divided up into sections so that the prose are manageable. Display name 99 (talk) 00:25, 1 September 2019 (UTC)
And Bacondrum, what's wrong with discussing his views on Trump's ban of transgenders in the military? That's certainly important enough for inclusion in the article in my opinion. Display name 99 (talk) 00:28, 1 September 2019 (UTC)
We're not here to discuss me or what stupid thing I said six months ago - I acknowledge that he is known for making controversial and obnoxious statements, that still doesn't mean it's due to list and quote every offensive or stupid thing he says. Again, it's undue detail, we are not reporters, we are not here to report every thing the subject says. He is not an expert on Israel, he is not an expert on transgenders in the military - he's a prominent online troll, a self published author and a discredited journalist - the article should describe him and what he does, it should summarise the key points regarding the subject and reflect his notability, not go into every detail of everything he ever says. So much of this article is undue, IMO. Bacondrum (talk) 00:42, 1 September 2019 (UTC)
I think we should at least attempt to summarize why he is notable, which is largely because of his offensive opinions and statements. Figuring out how to do that in a proportional way is very difficult, as this talk page and its archives shows.
If sources don't indicate why an interview statement is significant, then they aren't really independent. A transcription of an interview is (depending on perspective) a WP:PRIMARY source. We shouldn't build articles on these kinds of sources alone. Instead, we must evaluate the context which is provided by reliable sources, and summarize accordingly. If the interview on Zionism doesn't explain why his opinion is significant, it shouldn't be used to imply that it is anyway. So, again, why are sources reporting on his opinions about Zionism? I think you have a point about his mild criticism of Israel, but again, he is not a political expert, so what context does the source provide for this?
When I updated the paragraph on the "straight pride parade" (which happened today) I found that most sources didn't even mention Yiannopoulos, or only briefly mentioned that he was the grand marshal and nothing else. Perhaps this will change as more reports come in, but right now, it doesn't look like there is any lasting significance to this. What, precisely, does the line about "burn your briefcases" tell readers? When I said this was a PR stunt, I wasn't disparaging the comment (at least, not for that reason). I was saying that his role, as grand marshal, is similar to a spokesman. In fact, this quote was just part of a longer press release repeated by The Hill. So why was that specific quote important, but not any of the rest of the press release which was quoted? Hopefully this demonstrates the problem, as this is selectively highlighting one part of a longer source which was written for promotional purposes. You selected this one quote out of many for a specific reason, but neither the source, nor you, have given a reason why this perspective needs special emphasis.
Think of it this way: There are, on cable news and elsewhere, many people who are interviewed multiple times a week for their opinions. It would be absurd to try and compile every opinion of David Brooks (commentator) (as a random example of a pundit). Brooks is far, far more prolific, spanning decades longer than Yiannopoulos, but his article is less than half the byte-count. I know this is a flawed comparison. I think this article is bogged down with gossip. I think we both know why the article is as long as it is, but hopefully we can both also accept that it has problems stemming from this. Grayfell (talk) 00:56, 1 September 2019 (UTC)
There was a much longer press release from The Hill, but only a fraction of the quotes in it came from Yiannopoulos. This quote sums up what Yiannopoulos felt about the event better than anything else. In fact, he repeated bits of it practically verbatim at different points during his speech today, which he didn't do with the other quotes that are found in the article. Surely if anything can cause a quote to stand out, that would be it.
Personally, I don't consider Yiannopoulos an expert on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict either. But my personal views on this, or yours, don't matter. He, a political pundit, offered an opinion on something, which was quoted and discussed in context by a reliable source, which means that a case can be made for its inclusion in the article. Where's the rule that says that we can't quote from people in their biographies unless they're experts on the topics on which they speak? The simple fact of the matter is that pundits and politicians, and people in general, make statements on things that they aren't experts on or don't know anything about all of the time. It's nothing extraordinary. Our job is not to censor people by only representing what they say where we feel they have proper authority, but to provide as broad a representation as possible of the variety of things on which they might speak. After all, we already have plenty of cases in the article of Yiannopoulos mouthing off and saying things far less informed than in these comments about Israel and anti-Semitism. Display name 99 (talk) 03:22, 1 September 2019 (UTC)
Actually, for the Brooks article, the amount of space dedicated to discussing his views seems like it's actually slightly longer than the "Political views" section of the Yiannopoulos article. The reason why the Yiannopoulos article is so long is because there's a rather long "Career" section narrating things that he did before he became very famous, and an inflated "Controversies" section. If you want to reduce the size of the article, you should start chipping away that the "Career" and "Controversies" sections first. Yiannopoulos' statements on issues are what actually make him famous, which is why discussing them is the most important part of the article. Display name 99 (talk) 03:39, 1 September 2019 (UTC)
No, sorry, I absolutely do not accept you position that Yiannopoulos repeating his semi-pithy talking points at a public appearance elevates a quote to encyclopedic significance. This is an absurd standard which would make any article open to abuse. If you have a reliable source commenting on this line, or mentioning that he used it multiple times, or in any other way highlighting this specific quote, use that, instead. We are not a platform for regurgitating press releases, no matter how many times they are repeated. Your subjective opinion that it stands out is not relevant. Go ahead and take this to WP:RSN if you disagree.
Comparing him to a politician is a severe mismatch, but the process is the same. When a politician's comments are discussed in sources, it is usually because this might in some way connect to their actions. When Ilhan Omar says something significant, there are almost always reliable and independent sources reporting it, and also sources which explain why it was significant. When pundits like Brooks are invited to discuss something, it is because there is some outside indicator that either they have specific insight into the topic, or they are topic experts for some reason. How does the source indicate that Yiannopoulos's specific views on Zionism are significant? How about his views on Omar, or Israel? Did no other source bothered to comment on his "assassinate all Hamas leaders" comment? Why would that be?
As I said, Brooks is a flawed comparison, but anyone who's read or seen Brooks knows he babbles a bit and gives opinions that don't belong in an article. This isn't because they're not interesting enough to editors, it's because there is no indication that they matter to Brooks as a topic. The way to differentiate between substantial, encyclopedically significant information on one hand, and Brooks' filler or Yiannopoulos's controversy-baiting hot takes on the other, is through independent sources.
We cannot catalog all of Yiannopoulos's opinions, so why does it seems like every interview he does gets the juiciest blurb sampled in this article? This isn't a partisan thing, either, as I think both fans and detractors rush to include this stuff, ironically for the same reasons. Based on sources, it's usually indistinguishable from gossip, so it doesn't belong.
To put this another way, Yiannopoulos is not a "get" for any serious interviewer. He seeks attention and everyone knows it. We are not a platform for promotion, so that's not enough. Having an opinion doesn't justify including that opinion. Grayfell (talk) 05:17, 1 September 2019 (UTC)
Grayfell and Bacondrum, because it's obvious that we aren't going to agree here, I intend to start an RfC sometime soon on the article. I will withdraw if it is obvious that there is a strong consensus in your favor, but I think that it's best to let the wider Wikipedia community have a look at this issue. Display name 99 (talk) 00:20, 2 September 2019 (UTC)
I share similar concerns to those expressed above, Dn99. After you start the RfC, be sure to include multiple sources discussing the subject's statements. - SummerPhDv2.003:18, 2 September 2019 (UTC)
Starting to remove undue detail
Hi, I feel that this article is full of undue detail and cherry picked quotes. I understand that the subject is contentious and there are many editors with strong views about him (myself included). I believe the entire article needs to be gone through.
First off, his tours that are listed are cherry picked and I think they should all be removed, none of them are particularly significant, the guy does heaps of tours making inflammatory statements and promoting himself and his self published books. It's not encyclopedic to include a list of every tour he does, nor to include a cherry picked sample. Maybe a section covering the fact that he tours and these tours often attract protests and that he has had visa issues, that's enough.
Second, I'll start with the LGBT issues section (all of them need to be gone over, I just chose this section because of a recent addition) This section should summerise his views, not give a running commentary on every offensive thing he has said. Rather than reading like this, I propose that the section be reduced as such:
Despite marrying his same sex partner in October 2017, Yiannopolous opposes same-sex marriage.
Yiannopolous has described being gay as "a lifestyle choice" and stated that "If I could choose, I wouldn't be a homosexual."
Yiannopolous has described transgender people as mentally ill, stating that "It is our job to point out their absurdity, to not make the problem worse by pretending they are normal".
Obviously this is just a suggestion/example of how a long winded section with excessive undue detail and cherry picked quotes could be reduced to an accurate summary of his views, I'm not saying it has to be done my way, but the article needs pruning, serious pruning, IMO. (And the relevant citations would need to be included) The LGBT Issues section contains extensive quotes from Youtube, interviews with fringe broadcasters etc, it's a bit of a dogs breakfast, to be honest.
Keep in mind that we are working towards an FA quality article (at least I hope we are) as it stands this is a C: "The article is substantial but is still missing important content or contains much irrelevant material. The article should have some references to reliable sources, but may still have significant problems or require substantial cleanup."
As Grayfell has pointed out already - we should summarize why he is notable and present it in a proportional way. Indeed this is difficult, but the article reads terribly at the moment and it keeps being expanded with random quotes and events of often dubious notability. Bacondrum (talk) 22:32, 2 September 2019 (UTC)
Summaries of the major tours that Yiannopoulos has gone on form an important part of his history as a political commentator and I oppose their removal. With all due respect, three sentences about Yiannopoulos's views on LGBT issues is horrendously superficial. If you carry out your intended plan on the article, I expect that it would fail as an FAC due to a lack of comprehensiveness. I personally would be sure to vote against it if it were nominated. How is it not undue weight to have three sentences explaining the numerous comments that Yiannopoulos has made in speeches and interviews about LGBT issues while devoting six full paragraphs to his single comment on pedophilia? If it's true that we don't need running commentaries on every offensive thing that he's said, you'd do more good by reducing some of that material. Display name 99 (talk) 22:58, 2 September 2019 (UTC)
I have a lot to say about this, but lack time. Many sources have commented on Yiannopoulos's views on LGBT issues, starting with "not your shield" Gamergate junk and extending to very recent sources. His comments on pedophilia, however, have completely dominated all significant contemporary coverage of his career, so that will need to be discussed in some detail. As I said above, it's complicated. Grayfell (talk) 23:15, 2 September 2019 (UTC)
I'm not even saying that we should shorten the discussion of the pedophilia comments. But I am saying that if we are going to be consistent about reducing coverage of the many controversial things that Yiannapoulos has said, it would be worth looking into whether SIX full paragraphs for one comment (no matter how important) compared to three sentences for all of the different things that he has said about LGBT issues is really a proper weight. If someone wants to argue that we don't need to summarize every controversial thing that he's said, the should at least be consistent. I'm for keeping it all, but if we are going to get rid of something, I'd look under the sections for his early career and controversies, not under "Political views." Display name 99 (talk) 00:15, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
It's not about what the subject has said or how provocative it is. It's about coverage in independent reliable sources. If coverage in independent reliable sources was dominated by his favorite kind of cheese and ignored everything else, this article would be all about his choice of cheeses. - SummerPhDv2.000:50, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
And Yiannopoulos's statements on LGBT issues and other subjects have garnered substantial media coverage, so people should stop trying to remove them. Display name 99 (talk) 02:29, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
Display name 99 The section on pedophilia probably needs pruning, as does nearly every other section. I'm just starting on LGBT Issues section which contains a lot of irrelevant detail, cites youtube videos, fringe commentators, piles of undue detail etc. Obviously it doesn't necessarily need to be cut back to the point that I'm suggesting, but I think there's obviously excess and undue detail that needs to be pruned. Bacondrum (talk) 01:33, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
As for major tours, why just those tours? Why focus on Glasgow, DePaul University, University of Washington, UC Berkeley and his tour of Australia? He's had more notable tours and the list would be exhausting if we included them all. This stuff is all undue. A section that discusses his tours and controversies more generally and issues relating to denial of visas etc would be more encyclopedic. At the moment there's undue weight given to particular tours, etc. As a citizen and resident of the "arse end of the world" I find it very hard to believe that the Australian tour is one of the most notable, but it has a whole section dedicated to it, for example. Bacondrum (talk) 01:40, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
I'm fine with revising the tour section. I agree that the weight given to the Australian one in particular, including the one that never happened, is undue. I think that in the end we should still end up with at least a few paragraphs here. Even reducing it by half would be fine. But I don't want it cut down to just a few sentences. Display name 99 (talk) 02:29, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
RfC August 2019
The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
Include all-All of this content is supported by reliable sources and relevant to establishing the subject's viewpoint on various topics. Concerns about the article's length are unfounded. WP:Article size caps prose text size at 99 kB; this article is less than half of that. Yiannopoulos's quote on being named grand marshal of the straight pride parade is significant because the parade received substantial coverage in the media, and so it is worth including Yiannopoulos's comments on being named as one of the speakers, especially since he repeated those comments almost verbatim at different points during the speech. His statements on Zionism are significant because they are quoted and discussed in context by a reliable source, and because we do not quote him as having expressed similar sentiments elsewhere in the article. Editors have objected to the inclusion of that content on the basis that Yiannopoulos is not an expert on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. However, none of them have voiced any objections to discussing his support for Israel, which comes from the exact same source. Furthermore, people give opinions on things that they are not experts on all of the time. On Wikipedia, it's not our job to censor people when we believe that they do not have sufficient expertise to give remarks on a topic, but to represent the attitudes that people express when their statements are reported on by reliable sources, as they have been in this case. The same goes for the paragraph on Yiannopoulos's comments on transgenders in the military (second diff), for which a similar explanation was provided for removal. The paragraph discussing Yiannopoulos's stance on mocking and criticizing transgender people deserves to be included because the content forms an important basis for his overall rhetoric towards transgenders. Display name 99 (talk) 13:41, 2 September 2019 (UTC)
None - The "Men, bring your...Not Queer." quote cites two sources. The second does not include the quote. The first includes it as part of a longer quote, but is not discussed by the source. The selection of that piece is cherry picking.
The second section ("'I'm perfectly happy...biggest stick,' said Yiannopoulos.") is a complicated piece of cherry picking to focus on one aspect of a single article from a lesser source. In an article citing Bloomberg, The Guardian, The Atlantic, CBS, CNN, Rolling Stone, etc. we can't really consider a topic covered only by the The Jewish Journal to pass the WP:WEIGHT bar. Significant aspects of the subject's public persona (and life) will be discussed in multiple independent reliable sources. It's hard to imagine a significant, relevant aspect of the subject that has not been discussed in several.
The final bits: "In October 24, 2016,...may save their life." Yes, The Advocate published a quote by the subject. Thousands of quotes from the subject exist. Your selection here does not demonstrate that this is a meaningful part of the subject's story. If it is, other sources will discuss it. The school's response cites "delaware online (part of the USA Today network)" but misidentifies it as USA Today, a significant distinction. - SummerPhDv2.016:30, 2 September 2019 (UTC)
None - it's all massively undue detail, as with about half the article As per SummerPhDv2.0 - This article suffers from the same problems many articles on alt-right and related subjects suffer from, tit-for-tat right-left editing that leads to clunky prose, contains loads of undue detail and far too many cherry picked quotes...IMO Bacondrum (talk) 21:43, 2 September 2019 (UTC)
It's complicated but also none. First, I think this RFC was a good idea, because this is a recurring issue which should be discussed.
Sources from a broad range of ideologies frequently describe him as a "provocateur". His output is provocation, and we do not list every example of a creator's output just because we can find a source. There is a value in explaining how he is a provocateur, and examples of his inflammatory statements are the obvious way to do this. The only way we can differentiate between significant opinions or examples and random intentional provocations is with reliable, independent sources. If his provocations fail to draw a substantial response, they do not belong, and if they do, we should reflect that response according to reliable sources. Grayfell (talk) 23:00, 2 September 2019 (UTC)
None, at least with those sources. The sourcing there isn't sufficient to indicate that these quotes are noteworthy aspects of his bio; and the purpose of the article isn't to become a WP:QUOTEFARM of every random quote by him that we can source to anything. We already have enough in the article to establish his general perspective on all of these topics - going into more depth (and especially including more quotes) should require specific sourcing indicating that those quotes are important and why. --Aquillion (talk) 04:28, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
None - The process through which both supporters and detractors feel like adding more and more details to the page, particularly inflammatory quotes on pretty much every subject he ever mentioned lead to a weird and undesirable effect, in which this page has ballooned to a staggering size for someone of his profile. He's a mostly-Internet-famous commentator who visibly goes out of his way to make controversial (and often contradictory) remarks. He is essentially a YouTube celebrity with an occasional book tour, but his page reads like he is one of the central voice of contemporary political discourse, with his opinions on anything under the Sun being carefully recorded and dissected. Not only should the proposed paragraphs not be added to the article, but a lot of stuff should be taken out, especially since there are many redundant and superfluous bits. Do we really need a 12 paragraph section about his career which details every publication he ever wrote for? The whole damn things reads like a resume. PraiseVivec (talk) 16:22, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Is Yiannopoulos' reporting about Gamergate (A) significant enough to be included in the lede or should it (B) simply be addressed in the body of the article.
Comment, called by bot: does someone who supports inclusion have proposed text for the lead? A long sentence or two would be clearly inappropriate, whereas "...and was involved in the Gamergate controversy..." would not be. -Darouet (talk) 14:19, 10 September 2019 (UTC)
NOT LEAD - per guide WP:Lead, there’s not enough in the body to deserve being in lead. Not sure it deserves body content - depends on content and cites. I’d suggest have the content (if any) in body be settled a bit before asking further. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 04:59, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
Flyer22 Reborn No one has to do anything, can you please lay off. It's been re-added to the body with improved prose and citations. If Gamergate was to be re-added to the lede, do you have any text in mind? Bacondrum (talk) 07:31, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
Was there previously mention of Gamergate in the lede that was subsequently removed? I'm honestly quite confused about what this RfC is trying to accomplish. Simonm223 (talk) 12:11, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
Simonm223Darouet Okay, so in the section above there's been a debate about whether it should be mentioned in the lede, mostly between me and Flyer22, I just want some outside views to put it to bed either way. This was what was there a week or so ago: "Yiannopoulos was one of the first journalists to cover the Gamergate controversy." I removed it because it seemed like trivia to me, I personally thought that it was undue as all it was saying is that he covered a story, as did thousands of journalists. It's not saying he broke the story or anything like that, not saying that it was really important to his career. A third editor has added a small well written and and cited section about it and made it clear why it's worth including in the article. But I still think it doesn't warrant mentioning in the lede, after all, all he did was do his job and make some inflammatory comments. Flyer22 disagrees...so I just wanted to see what other editors think, get consensus. Sorry, I'm still learning. Bacondrum (talk) 12:42, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
(edit conflict)Considering the significance of Yiannopoulos to Gamergate, a short mention in the lede is probably due, although I don't think the previous version fully captures his involvement. I'd suggest Yiannopoulos rose to prominence as a significant voice in the Gamergate controversy.Simonm223 (talk) 12:47, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Semi-protected edit request on 6 September 2019
This edit request to Milo Yiannopoulos has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
Please change the descriptor of Milo from "Far-Right" or "Alt-Right" as that is not what he is, or represents at all. Wikipedia describes "far-right" as "politics further on the right of the left-right spectrum than the standard political right, particularly in terms of extreme nationalism,[1][2] nativist ideologies, and authoritarian tendencies,[3] all sustained by an organicist vision of the world.[4]Used to describe the historical experiences of fascism and Nazism,[5] it today includes neo-fascism, neo-Nazism, Third Position, the alt-right,[6] and other ideologies or organizations that feature ultranationalist, chauvinist, xenophobic, racist, anti-communist, or reactionary views."
This could not be further from the truth with Milo Yiannopoulos. He is a gay, Jewish man, married to a black man. How can you even imagine he is a neo-nazi or "far-right"? Azzaln007 (talk) 12:44, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
He is gay and also a homophobe, it's paradoxical, but it's also a fact. He claims to be a Jewish man, but that's actually never been confirmed, he has also claimed to be Catholic. He married to a black man, and he also throws Roman salutes and sings songs with Nazi's, again perplexing and paradoxical, but 100% true. "How can you even imagine he is a neo-nazi or "far-right"?" We don't imagine he is, hundreds of reliable news reports have told us that - read the sources, what you and me think of him is irrelevant, we look to reliable sources, not the editors opinion. Bacondrum (talk) 04:23, 7 September 2019 (UTC)
Milo is a self proclaimed provocateur who made outrageous claims about his family, education, wealth, friends, etc. I really want to see his (Hawaii) marriage license (or certificate) since he claimed he married an "Afro-American" man, but he recently attended "Straight Pride" in Boston as a marshal, and once again made a very inflammatory statements about gay community. His hypocrisy, cognitive dissonance are fascinating. Moelscene (talk) 13:45, 7 September 2019 (UTC)
Indeed, this article needs a good going over, many things Milo claims have not been verified and should probably be removed as they are not verifiable facts. Bacondrum (talk) 00:00, 8 September 2019 (UTC)
Undue levels of detail included within the section on pedophelia remarks
This seems undue to me:
Matthew Rozsa of Salon.com wrote that although Yiannopoulos is technically correct in distinguishing between paedophilia, hebephilia, and ephebophilia, "it is still illegal in most parts of the Western world for an adult to have sex with a minor." Margaret Hartmann of New York magazine additionally acknowledged the definitions for hebephilia and ephebophilia, but stated, "The lowest and most common age of consent across the U.S. is 16."
The section on pedophilia comments is already way too detailed, IMO. Two op-eds discussing the distinction between paedophilia, hebephilia, and ephebophilia doesn't belong in this article, maybe the articles about paedophilia, hebephilia, or ephebophilia. It seems pretty obviously undue to me that this is completely undue, but I've been wrong before. Any thoughts? Bacondrum (talk) 03:43, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
My thoughts are above. I stated, "[R]egarding this revert by me [...] We have already been over this. It is consensus material. It is included because, with regard to Yiannopoulos's comments and some commentators accusing him of endorsing pedophilia, other commentators did take note of what pedophilia is and isn't."
The arguments you made above were already made. Almost everyone who voted in that RfC was for inclusion. I can ping them for a reassessment of their views. We have commentators inaccurately speaking on pedophilia and related matters in the section. It makes sense to have commentators accurately speaking on pedophilia and related matters in the section. You titled this discussion section "Undue levels of detail," but have criticized a WP:Due aspect that already went through discussion. Is your rationale not based on WP:IDON'TLIKEIT because commentators are pointing out that Yiannopoulos is technically correct about what pedophilia is? We have had editors at this article strongly wanting to present him as a supporter of pedophilia. And, no, per WP:MEDRS and those pieces specifically being about Yiannopoulos's statements, those pieces don't belong in the articles about Pedophilia, Hebephilia, or Ephebophilia. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 03:57, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
Consensus changes, the only thing I don't like that is relevant to this discussion is a meandering article full of trivia and undue detail. Bacondrum (talk) 04:11, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
Yes, consensus changes, but it hasn't yet changed in this case. I struck through the "we have commentators inaccurately speaking on pedophilia and related matters in the section" part of my comment. When the section in the article noted that some commentators accused Yiannopoulos of endorsing pedophilia, the Matthew Rozsa paragraph was more relevant and didn't come across as some unnecessary piece. The "some commentators accused Yiannopoulos of endorsing pedophilia" aspect was removed when you made this edit. Part of the content stated, "Editorials in conservative media, including National Review, The Blaze, Townhall, and The American Conservative have characterised his comments as supportive of paedophilia or pederasty." As seen at Talk:Milo Yiannopoulos/Archive 4#Okay, that's not getting anywhere, I criticized some of the removals. I feel that we should re-dd that Yiannopoulos's comments were widely characterized as endorsing paedophilia or pederasty, since that was what the controversy was about. MrX agreed that "characterised his comments as supportive of paedophilia or pederasty" and "widely criticised" are fine for the section. But without that aspect, the Matthew Rozsa paragraph isn't needed and I understand your point about removing it. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 04:21, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
I'll revert myself until the "Yiannopoulos's comments were widely characterized as endorsing paedophilia or pederasty" aspect is added back. If no one else adds it, and appropriately of course, I'll get around to adding it. Anything else in the section you think needs cutting? Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 04:28, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
I would support that, the recent removal would be relevant in that context. I reckon that section would be fine at that point, that's one section where most the detail is due IMO, after all those comments are one of the only reasons anyone has ever heard of him. Bacondrum (talk) 04:43, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
Feminism, Privilege Grant
There are two chapters about feminism. Is it really necessary? The page is very voluminous, rehashed info, and very difficult to read. Privilege Grant was not explained (the nature of the grant, who gave him money, fans or Mercer family; who won the grant?). Moelscene (talk) 08:55, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
yes, thanks for improving the grant section. And yes, the feminism sections should be merged and undue detail removed. I agree, for someone of such little note, the article is far too voluminous, I've been saying this for ages - way too much undue detail! I'll suport any move to remove undue detail and improve the prose and flow of the article. Bacondrum (talk) 22:50, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
The Kernel
There seems to be a low key edit war regarding how much information should be given about Yiannopoulos' work with The Kernel...it gets added in, it gets taken out, etc. Can we get any agreement on how much information to include? LizRead!Talk!01:25, 7 September 2019 (UTC)
I personally think it's okay as it is now. As with most of the article and most articles relating to the Alt-right, there's a tendency to add excessive detail. Naming co-founders, excessive details about its management etc are undue, it's a footnote in a largely discredited and short career as a journalist. Breitbart, his tours (the protests they received), some of the most outrageous claims he has made and his trashy book are the parts of his career that are noteworthy, IMO. Bacondrum (talk) 01:52, 7 September 2019 (UTC)
Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the 
Fixed - MrX 🖋 13:13, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. DannyS712 (talk) 06:21, 9 March 2019 (UTC)