Talk:Milo Yiannopoulos/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

Archive 5

Education

As there are refs for the subject not graduating from Manchester or Cambridge, they can't really be described as Alma Maters can they? Soupy sautoy (talk) 06:54, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

Recent removal by ip

An ip recently removed this stating "No publicly viewable citation for these claims. As with a lot of the content on this profile it seems mean-spirited and designed to denigrate rather than provide facts". I disagree with that IP's edit summary; however, the material is completely original research and should not be reintroduced. Ryan Vesey 19:41, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

Have to agree with the above. I don't think it was malicious but WP:SOURCES is pretty clear that only publications should be referenced, not university records. This original research does appear to be true, but not appropriate. I'll remove it. Soupy sautoy (talk) 19:24, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

I've been bold and removed the Cambridge university bit completely. Given the convincing albeit inadmissible references, we shouldn't be implying something if it isn't the case. This strikes me as the most sensible option in terms of BLP policy and, well, getting things right in general. WilliamH (talk) 21:30, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

The Daily Mail has him squarely as a 'second year English student at Wolfson College, Cambridge'. I think it is reasonable to mention that he attended since it doesn't in any way contravene BLP policy and is supported by a reliable, third-party (freely visible) source. FunkyCanute (talk) 09:42, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

That's not the issue. Mentioning that he attended Cambridge without being able to mention the whole story falsely implies that he is a Cambridge graduate, which we have been given very good reason to believe is not the case. At best, that's inaccurate, and at worst, it's dishonest. We should not be creating a loophole for a false implication about a living person, because that fundamentally goes against the grain of BLP policy, and on that basis, I have reverted your edit. Remember that what's not said can be just as important as what is. WilliamH (talk) 16:54, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

I have the official University of Cambridge Class-Lists 2012 as published in the Cambridge Reporter Vol. CXLII (Special No. 9) on 20 August 2012, which are available to University members here, and the Part II English Tripos Class List clearly does not include Yiannopoulos, while the Wolfson College website lists him as part of the 2009 admission cohort here so his exclusion from the 2012 Class List in what would have been his third and final year clearly indicates he did not graduate from Cambridge. i.am.lost (talk) 19:36, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

Just a note that I have removed the anonymous blog post. Regardless of one's thoughts on the subject, such a reference is really rather beyond the pale in terms of WP:RS and WP:BLP. WilliamH (talk) 15:15, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

disagree. If it was just text that would be true but the reference was entirely to the photographs. I'm going to restore. Soupy sautoy (talk) 15:12, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

No. Our business is the opinions of reliable authors, not the opinions of Wikipedians who interpret primary source material by anonymous bloggers for themselves. I'm not necessarily here to defend any of the controversies surrounding Yiannopoulos — I'm the one added a suitable reference confirming that he didn't graduate, for example — but at the same time, such a reference is completely inadmissible on a living person's biography. WilliamH (talk) 10:18, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

I'm not going to revert it back right now, we'll slide into a silly spat. I urge you to reconsider though. It is an anonymous blog but it's been commented on (both on the page and in other posts) by reliable authors and the facts are beyond dispute.Soupy sautoy (talk) 14:25, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Judgements

Minus the unacceptable use of Twitter as a reference, I've reinstated the judgement-related stuff removed by the IP. Since there is no article on Sentinel Media, and since Yiannopoulos presumably bears absolute responsibility for the company as its sole director, I see no grounds for it to be removed. WilliamH (talk) 10:31, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

Someone using the TunnelBear VPN service to provide them with different IPs seems to have been repeatedly removing material related to these judgements over the last several months. Curious, I wonder who would want to remove negative information and hide their IP? Oh, I see Milo has had TunnelBear recommended to him by friends several times on twitter. 92.4.170.174 (talk) 19:22, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

Irony

I find ironic that some articles get controversy, and others that are controversy-worthy don't because of their position in the world. Fuckin' ad-hominem.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.78.145.144 (talk) 01:21, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

Gamergate notability / involvement

I'm just going to dump these all here as RS/weight for the changes I make:

Spectator, New Statesman, Week, Times, Metro, Spiked, Verge, RealClearPolitics and Reason, Vulture, Stuff, Inquisitr, Washington Post, Metaleater, Forbes, CNN, Recode, Chinatopix, Ars Technica, Forbes again, Bit-tech, pocketgamer, tportal, Totalbiscuit and video games publications EICs Janelle Bonanno and Greg Tito

Particularly, there is a focus on how Breitbart / Yiannopoulous got involved early in the controversy and spread the tag, and on the leaked emails of the GameJournoPros list. Both of these topics should be in the article. Willhesucceed (talk) 19:09, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

there is also a focus on shady journalism practices from a guy supposedly covering a campaign about shady journalism. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 00:48, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

I know that criticism exists, but I can't remember where I saw it. If you want to provide the quotes, or just point out the articles, that would help. If not, cool. Willhesucceed (talk) 01:33, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

Restructuring

@TheRedPenOfDoom:, how would you suggest the article's reorganised? Willhesucceed (talk) 00:23, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

Pretty much any way but the puerile tabloid "scandal"/"controversy"/"drahmaz" that seem to be a favorite default. one standard option is chronological with events and their reception discussed at the same time. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 00:53, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

I'm not sure that Gamergate deserves an entire subsection to itself. Whoever did that, care to explain your reasoning? Willhesucceed (talk) 22:06, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

I added the heading above existing content. The Career section could use a few more; it's quite long not to be broken up.--Trystan (talk) 22:25, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

I added another two. Willhesucceed (talk) 11:48, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

Improving summaries of sources

I made an attempt to replace two dubious characterizations of sources in the article with direct quotes. This is generally a preferable approach where characterizing what is said will be difficult or controversial. The change has however mostly been reverted.

With respect to the Yiannopoulos article, "criticizing the politicization of video game culture" is a whitewashed description of an article about "an army of sociopathic feminist programmers and campaigners ... terrorising the entire community." Neither cited secondary source gives such a misleadingly bland description. Including the title summarizes the article much more effectively.

The summary of the Orlando article suggests he apologized for "acting unprofessionally," a stronger wording than is found in the apology itself. When summarizing things people are apologizing for, we need to be very careful about wording, and here I don't see why we wouldn't simply quote him directly.--Trystan (talk) 22:54, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

Trystan, I removed the article title because it's ... weird? to provide it. If you want to provide a one- or two-sentence summary of the article and criticism leveled at it, go for it.

As for Orland, I rewrote it a little, and kept his defense. The way you had phrased it made it sound like he was entirely denying he'd done anything wrong, and that's not the case. Willhesucceed (talk) 09:52, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

Would you mind fixing the echo chamber link for me? I don't know how to format links to Wiki pages that contain brackets, e.g. Echo Chamber (media). Willhesucceed (talk) 10:11, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

I've added a quote from the lead paragraph of the Brietbart article. I don't think the title seemed out of place (CNN cited it in text), but a quote is fine too.

The thing to remember with piped links is that the article title, exactly as it appears on the article, goes before the pipe.--Trystan (talk) 14:32, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, that's much better. The former (title) made it seem like Wikipedia was trying to intimate something, which made me uncomfortable, considering this is an encyclopaedia. The quote avoids giving that impression. This is better.

I think I'd capitalised "chamber". I'll keep in mind to format the link exactly as is next time. Willhesucceed (talk) 00:44, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

More Yiannopoulos sources

Some more stuff to include:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ljIMMCQyexA - The David Pakman Show seems RS

Salon

Willhesucceed (talk) 07:05, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

Hanrahan

In this edit User:Malfuron4 changed his surname from Yiannopoulos to Hanrahan, citing "Duedil" as a source, and saying that there are others that are blacklisted. Can someone (preferable Malfuron4) explain why this is a reliable source for a BLP, and why it should supplant other sources. And if there are blacklisted sources that are high-quality, and needed for this article, what are they and why would high-quality sources be blacklisted? Guettarda (talk) 18:43, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

What more is there to say? He confirmed himself via his personal twitter account that his father is named Nicolas Hanrahan. He is listed as a business affiliate of his father as Milo Hanrahan. If Yiannopoulos is his legal name due to him deciding to change it(which given the fact of the person in question, he may have not done so just as he decided to call himself "Andreas Wagner", there is no denying the fact that AT THE VERY LEAST his birth name is indeed, Hanrahan. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Malfuron4 (talk • contribs) 21:09, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Time to request semi-protection?

The IP vandalism is getting a bit silly. Artw (talk) 21:48, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

Cheers! Artw (talk) 22:24, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

Analyses of what Milo's said

I removed a sentence. Here's my edit: [1]

It got re-added with the summary "of course analysis of milos statements are relevant", so I'm explaining my removal here.

Yes, analyses of Milo's statements can be relevant but the sentence I removed was:

Liana Kerzner of metaleater.com also criticized Yiannopoulos for negative descriptions of gamers, and claimed he had pushed "very serious allegations" against prominent figures associated with GamerGate.

There's no analysis there. It doesn't say which descriptions she's referring to (maybe the ones mentioned earlier, maybe not), it doesn't say what her criticism was, it doesn't say what the allegations were or who they were made against. This article exists to document Milo, but this sentence tells us nothing about him or his actions. It just says that the unspecified opinion of some person (journalist? blogger?) was negative.

This sentence might have some relevance in the Liana Kerzner article, because it goes in the direction of documenting something she says/does/thinks, but even in that article it would probably be too vague to be of any use.

Yes, we need more analysis. But "Mr. X from gamegame.com reacted unhappy to certain statements by Milo" is not analysis. Gronky (talk) 13:40, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

For what it's worth: It is not in any way criminal to "push serious allegations", assuming evidence. But the phrasing could be taken as implying libel, which is criminal. So I think a case can be made for WP:BLPGOSSIP, on account of the weasel-wording. 74.12.93.177 (talk) 03:08, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

See also

I added a wikilink to Dark Enlightenment. I'm not sure about that, as it very fractured, the NRx thing. If anyone disagrees, I'm certain they'll feel free to remove my edit.... --FeralOink (talk) 00:21, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

Why would you link to an article about neo-fascism when there's no mention or allusion to anything of the sort on the page? Cool vandalism bro-sis. Frankie qq (talk) 22:21, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

Dark Enlightenment is NOT neo-fascism! I am not criticizing Milo Yiannopoulos by wikilinking him with it. Sometimes Milo, who is @nero on Twitter, says that he is the leader of NRx on his Twitter bio. I have no idea if he is serious about that or not. That's why I mentioned what I had added here. Don't accuse me of vandalism! That hurts my feelings, but thank you for using a dual pronoun, because I am female :o) Anyway, give me a good reason why Milo isn't associated with neo-reaction (NRx a.k.a. Dark Enlightenment) and I'll have no problem with removing it. Like I said, I'm not even sure of the status of neo-reaction as they remind me of political splinter groups, e.g. "Clandestine Liberation Front", "Free Liberation Army", "The Clandestine Liberation Army", "The People's Army for the Liberation of Clandestia" and so forth.--FeralOink (talk) 05:41, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

If there's a link between Yiannopoulos and dark-enlightenment then you need to cite it. There is no association between the two mentioned in either article. Frankie qq (talk) 19:02, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

GamerPolitics.com

Is GamePolitics.com a reliable this? It looks like it might be user submitted. Artw (talk) 01:56, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

Artw It was one that came up on google news. Added UPI reference. -- Callinus (talk) 02:17, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

This article looks recently whitewashed

I noticed a lot of parts of Milo's article have been scrubbed to make him seem like a less offensive man than he is. For example, his sexist stance was recently scrubbed.

As surprised Milo's stance on gay marriage is so lightly touched on when it's been reiterated by Milo over and over.

• Told his followers that homosexuality is "aberrant" and that anyone who wants a gay child is "evil". He compares being gay to a mental illness.
• Compared legalizing gay marriage to legalizing bestiality.

I'm equally surprised Milo's pro-violence stance was scrubbed although the article linked clearly has Milo's non-apology about the tweets he publicly posted.

• Milo has clearly advocated for teenagers to self-harm.
• Milo has publicly alluded to raping someone on the bed where he has cut their pet into pieces.

--Funpumpkin (talk) 18:05, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

This isn't about "scrubbing," it's about following our WP:BLP policy by finding WP:RS that WP:Verify all claims made in an article. If you'd like to make changes to the article, including reinserting material that was removed due to inadequate sourcing, you are welcome to--just be sure to find reliable, secondary sources. Thanks. Safehaven86 (talk) 18:43, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

Are primary sources acceptable? --Funpumpkin (talk) 20:36, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

I realise this is verging on synthesis, but can we say something like "Yiannopoulos has a history of making provocative statements" and provide a few examples, maybe with a source to an interview with him or that Guardian profile from a few years back? This is someone who has called Malala Yousafzai "a bit of a bore" and "becoming a feminist makes a woman less marriageable, more crass and generally just unpleasant to be around" and "there may be a scientific basis to why women don’t succeed as well in science" (these aren't from anonymous tell-tales, they're his published words) so I don't think it's something anybody could sanely dispute. Blythwood (talk) 21:45, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

I would in no way consider myself Milo Yiannopoulous' greatest fan, but unless the sources describe him as a maker of provocative statements, we can not. You seem to be suggesting that we deviate from policy to describe Milo in a more negative and controversial light because we personally abhor his views. This goes completely against WP:BLP policy. Unless the sources say it, we can't. Brustopher (talk) 22:43, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

It seems the provocative statements Milo makes himself would back up the secondary source regarding his death wish on the G20 protestors. Ditto to his personal remarks regarding homosexuality -- they back up the secondary sources that were removed for not being sufficiently credible. Would this be considered a proper use of primary sources in order to back up secondary ones? I have no vested interest in starting an edit war either (and I'm pretty un-versed in editing in general), but I did find those particular bits of information to be of use to me in the past. --Funpumpkin (talk) 03:15, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

No, Brustopher's right: it doesn't go that far. (This is the problem with deleted tweets: there's no citing them unless a reputable website scoops them up before they vanish!) Will see what I can draft/source. Whatever you think of Yiannopoulous' standpoints, he's sure as heck trolling someone (he never phrases anything in less than the most provocative way possible to people he doesn't like) and I think not mentioning that looks like we don't get the joke. Blythwood (talk) 04:33, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

Are Milo's Breitbart editorials and Youtube videos acceptable primary sources? 3hunna (talk) 02:47, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

No, neither of those sources are generally considered reliable. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:05, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

Couldn't one of his articles that he writes, if they're about himself, be used under WP:SELFSOURCE? GamerPro64 04:38, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

His editorials routinely meet 3-4 of the 5 criteria of WP:SELFSOURCE. While Breitbart itself is rather unreliable, Milo's pieces for the site are a comprehensive cross-section of his views and beliefs. Let's assume in good faith that his published op-eds reflect his ideals. 3hunna (talk) 06:54, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

There would be an issue of how we determine which of his views are notable enough for inclusion- how do we determine notability? If the answer comes down to the judgement of individual editors, our reporting on his views might end up focusing on the more disgusting of them rather than his non-terrible ones (although I confess as to not knowing what his non-terrible standpoints are). PeterTheFourth (talk) 07:01, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

We could start by reporting his views on feminism, homosexuality, and rape culture - all issues mentioned in the article but not elaborated on beyond them being something he has "controversial" beliefs about. We could also put together a more general overview of his political orientation and broader views, in the interest of giving the reader a concise summary of his editorial style. 3hunna (talk) 09:10, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

I agree with PeterTheFourth's comments. How do we determine which of his views to include here? I think the answer to that is to include only his views that have been found by non-affiliated news outlets to be notable enough to comment on. So reporting on one of his views and using one of his Breitbart columns as the source isn't enough. In order to verify that his view on a particular subject is notable enough to include here, we'd need to find discussion of his particular views by sources that aren't his own columns. Safehaven86 (talk) 21:01, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

His Excellency

I've seen the honorific used for him before. Does it apply?--177.183.43.171 (talk) 06:00, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

It will always apply good sir! -- Starius (talk) 20:27, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

Image

Does the image really depict the subject of the article? it doesn't look like the same person as other depictions of the subject. The provenance seems to be some bloke in a crowd saw someone they thought was Yiannopoulos.Lacunae (talk) 17:28, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

Huh. I found an image of the article subject here, and you're right, it doesn't look very similar to the picture in this article. I'm fine with removing the image due to this discrepancy. I would try to find a new one to add, but my knowledge of image permissions is low. Safehaven86 (talk) 17:45, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

I found one on flickr with a valid licence. The previous image may just be a strange angle or the glasses.Lacunae (talk) 18:10, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

Sweet. Thanks! Safehaven86 (talk) 18:14, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

Typo: Controversies section: extra quote after "wrote": "tweet from December 2015 where he wrote " "Is it any wonder successful gay men hate feminists, when women, in tax terms as elsewhere, are so ... well, parasitical?"" — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chrishneville (talk • contribs) 23:40, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

Collective?

Assuming the Buzzfeed piece isn't an April Fool's thing, how should we incorporate this into the article? DS (talk) 23:34, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

Judging from Yiannopoulos' response, my impression is that Buzzfeed must have gotten pranked or masterfully trolled. Even if that somehow wasn't the case, anonymous sources at a clickbait site like BuzzFeed probably wouldn't be good enough for a controversial claim like that in a BLP. Kelly ^hi! 15:47, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

Career

In the career section there's a huge chunk of quotation from the article "I’m Sooo Bored of Being Gay" regarding sexuality that is largely irrelevant. All it is is a sarcastic rant by Milo and I think it should either be summarised, or moved to the "Others" section. 123.3.16.224 (talk) 07:01, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

In the career section it mentions places he's speaked on certain issues, but not what his stances on those issues are. I think this is important information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.251.156.42 (talk) 13:02, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

speech stopped

I don't know if incidents of his speeches being disrupted are worth mentioning in the article, but here is a reference in case they are deemed worthy: https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2016/05/26/two-colleges-what-happens-when-protesters-obstruct-free-speech . 05:23, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

I think it is. Used HuffPo but the more references we add to establish notability the better. Ranze (talk) 16:22, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

Tablet

please change ((Tablet)) to ((Tablet (magazine)|Tablet)) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:541:4305:c70:805e:9ef:7835:30bb (talk)

Done — Andy W. (talk · ctb) 15:42, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

Removing material sourced to HuffPo blog.

Regarding this: two sources mention that an event was disrupted by BLM protesters, but the only one that mentions "violent threats" is this one, from the Huffington Post blog. Posts to the blog are effectively self-published: Huffington Post does not exert editorial control, it simply hosts the material, and anything that isn't libelous or abusive is allowed. Nblund (talk) 20:24, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

Paragraph on DePaul protests

Regarding this edit: the paragraph previously cited: the Daily Caller, Washington Times, and Reason online. None of the statements in this section were given in-text attribution. The only two relatively mainstream sources were both from the Chicago Tribune, and they were both editorials that were critical of protesters. Opinion pieces and editorials are usually not reliable sources for statements of fact, and the list of citations to uniformly critical opinions raises obvious NPOV red-flags.

Mainstream coverage of this incident is minimal, but I found these sources.

Chicago Sun-Times Inside Higher Education Depaulia (the student newspaper)

None of these sources mention anyone "striking" Yiannopoulos. They also don't clearly identify the protesters as having anything more than an ideological alignment with the Black Lives Matter movement, and none of these sources say that University officials prevented security from removing the protesters. Even the two Chicago Tribune editorials, both critical of the protesters, don't make these claims.

If we find good quality (non-opinion) sources for these statements we should put them in and include those citations. My view is that that the lack of mainstream coverage suggests that this is not a particularly notable incident, but if we really think some of these opinion pieces are notable enough to warrant mention, they should be given clear in-text attribution and should not be stated in Wikipedia's voice. Nblund (talk) 17:01, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

You are really twisting here. What's your agenda? Without even trying hard, I found an article from the Washing Times that says, "Conservative pundit Milo Yiannopoulos was threatened with violence and hit in the face by a female student during a speaking engagement at the university’s Chicago campus on earlier this week." Are you going to persist with this? I'm not even citing other sources that are reliable, but right wing, that covered this. You've also ignored the video recording of the attack which has been cited by sources.Mattnad (talk) 18:48, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

Yes, that article was cited and I mentioned it above. The Washington Times is a right-leaning newspaper that blends editorial content in to all of it's news. It might be a plausible case for inclusion if there were any non-right wing sources that reported this, but I can't find a single one. It seems like a pretty massive WP:REDFLAG that none of the mainstream coverage (including the 7 articles published by the student newspaper), bothered to mention threats of violence or anyone being hit in the face. I have absolutely no problem putting it back in if you can find coverage in any of the mainstream sources that covered the three claims I removed, but I seriously can't find it, even though I looked.

I don't see anyone being "struck" in the video, but it's a moot point: it's a Youtube video uploaded by Milo Yiannopolous to his Youtube channel. This is a self-published claim being used to source a statement about a living third party.

This seems like a strange hill to die on. Can you explain why you think this material is so essential that we should forego ordinary precautions about verifiability? Nblund (talk) 19:37, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

The material is verifiable based on the many sources and WP:RS make no mention of the requirements you've invented here. The video is referred to by other sources and is on its face is not a matter of opinion. A punch is thrown towards his face (and you've sidestepped my queries on that). I'll take it to RSN given you've deleted rather than edited here (i.e., added in-text attribution if that's your requirement). Mattnad (talk)

I'm not sure what you want me to address regarding the Youtube video, but I did mention it in my previous comment. Could you clarify what I'm supposed to be seeing here? It looks like maybe she shakes the mic in his face at 9 seconds, but I can't even tell if she actually touches him. Is that what you're referencing? Regardless: a Youtube video uploaded by Yiannopoulos is a primary, self-published source, and it's not an RS.

I'm have a tough time seeing why this is even worth arguing over. Putting aside the basic verifiability issue for a moment: it seems like there's a pretty big NPOV issue when the entire discussion is sourced to right-wing websites and editorials. I think it would help if you would clarify exactly what you want to see in the article and why. Are you saying you want to see those articles quoted with in-text citations? Do you agree with me that this isn't covered in mainstream sources, and that it seems odd that mainstream sources wouldn't mention that Yiannopoulos was punched in the face or threatened? Nblund (talk) 22:38, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

Nothing odd about it. You have decided that if something is covered only by right wing press, it's not verifiable. No point in arguing this. You've dug in your heels and have ignored WP:RS. I'll present it to RSN.Mattnad (talk) 11:48, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

I can't really "dig in my heels", because you aren't saying what you want. Are you saying you want to keep the unattributed claim that a student clearly struck Yiannopoulos? Without in-text attribution?

Did you read the WP:REDFLAG thing that I linked to? I'm really referencing the part about "surprising or apparently important claims not covered by multiple mainstream sources;". This seems like a fairly important factoid, but it's not covered in any mainstream source, and it doesn't even seem to be consistently described in the right-wing sources I've looked at: you quoted Soave saying that the protester can be seen "striking Yiannopoulos in the face", but the video description says that the protester "took a swing at him", and Breitbart Tech (which is Yiannopoulos' outlet) says protesters "grabbed the microphone out of the interviewer’s hand, and threatened to punch Yiannopoulos in the face." (emphasis mine). Daily Caller doesn't mention the "threats" or the "punch".

The university president say he saw "a student rip the microphone from the hands of the conference moderator and wave it in the face of our speaker.”. That actually looks more consistent with what the video, but who knows? None of these sources seem sufficient for a BLP-claim that effectively accuses a person of committing an assault, and even the unreliable sources don't agree. None of this seems like an issue to you? Nblund (talk) 16:34, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

This Daily Beast article is another source for the assault [2] One of his accomplices, a female student, actually struck Yiannopoulos in the face (albeit gently). James J. Lambden (talk) 00:25, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

This is is another opinion piece, by Robby Soave, who regularly publishes editorials critical of student protesters. It adds yet another description of the event: we now have the protester "gently" striking him in the face(?). You're describing it as an "assault", but no one is arrested, Yiannopoulos's own outlet seems to contradict that description, and no mainstream outlet appears to have reported it. This seems to fail on basic verifiability grounds, but it also seems UNDUE to report it, given that it only appears in a handful of sources that appear to have a bias that would likely disfavor the protesters. Nblund (talk) 14:45, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

The Daily Beast article makes claims of fact and it's published in an RS subject to editorial review - it's citable. I don't understand your arrest argument; by that logic 95% of rape is imagined. So far we have two sources reporting the assault. If more sources report it I'll consider adding it to the article. James J. Lambden (talk) 15:47, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

Your comparison to sexual assault seems like an odd analogy: do you think, in articles where we discuss people accused of sexual assault, that we repeat completely un-attributed allegations of sexual assault? Without in-text attribution? And without regard to the quality or consistency of the sourcing? Jezebel.com is subject to editorial review, I think people would (rightfully) object if someone started citing accusations from that outlet in an article about sexual assault.

You say you will consider adding "it" to the article, but I'm not sure what "it" is because the sources are inconsistent. That she "struck him (gently)"? "threatened him"? "swung at him"? "waved the microphone in his face"? Which of the various descriptions do you think we choose? Does it seem problematic if we pick the most sensational claim? Are you suggesting we should do this with in-text attribution, or simply state it as a fact? Nblund (talk) 19:02, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

BLP is not a concern provided the person is not identified and while controversial (to you) it's sourced which is all that BLP requires. None of the sources fail on verifiability grounds, well, because they are verifiable according to extremely fundamental Wikipedia policy. So it comes down to how it's presented with an eye towards weight. While you write about avoiding the "most sensational claim", you've systematically removed any and all claim of threatened or actual violence with various arguments including the argument that Breitbart's video recording of her actions cannot be included because it's "self-published". It's no more self published than ABC or NBC posting on youtube. Now a reasonable person would say forcibly taking a microphone out of one person's hand and shaking it in another person's face would is threatening which is why several sources have commented on it - all of which you dismiss because they are conservative. Some have stated the protester struck him. So to answer James J. Lambden's comment about having sources here are a few, and none of them are "opinion pieces" technically:

• Breitbart: "threatened to punch Yiannopoulos in the face" and "One attendee, Matt Forney, was grabbed by activists as he attempted to film the march."
• Daily Caller: "One video uploaded to Twitter, for instance, shows the cameraman joke about a protester’s weight and subsequently get attacked by a woman who calls him a “fucking racist.”
• Washington Times: "Conservative pundit Milo Yiannopoulos was threatened with violence and hit in the face by a female student during a speaking engagement at the university’s Chicago campus on earlier this week."
• Reason.com "In video footage of the event, a female protester can clearly be seen striking Yiannopoulos in the face."

The articles cover more and I think there's enough here to say, "Several news sources indicated some protesters threatened violence, with some reporting on actual physical acts of violence against Milo and another person videotaping the protest. They also included links to a video recording of one protester grabbing a microphone and possibly hitting Milo in the face. During the interruption, protesters shouted "Black Lives Matter" while security guards stood passively aside at the request of administrators present". We could then provide details of how DePaul had required to Milo to pay for additional security, but later refunded those charges and apologized to organizers. Now, if you insist these are opinion pieces, we could include the sources in-text.Mattnad (talk) 20:52, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

Yes, these are opinion sources. If you're really uncertain, you can ask for yet another clarification on the RS noticeboard. Regardless: WP:ASSERT would apply here even if they weren't opinion pieces because they contradict each other, so it's really a moot point.

Regarding your proposed wording: Protesters reportedly yelled a number of things, so I don't really think it makes sense to single out "Black Lives Matter", and I can't find any other sourcing (aside from the Huffington Post article that we already discussed) for the claim that University administrators asked police or security not to intervene.

More importantly, it doesn't give in-text attribution, and it gives a level of detail and a one-sided set of accusations that is almost certainly WP:UNDUE. Given that this has received minimal coverage inside or outside of the mainstream press, due weight probably dictates that this should not be covered at all.

If it is covered, it should not be given more coverage than the aspects of the protest that were covered in the mainstream sources, and it should be neutral: both sides have accused one another of threats, intimidation, and assault. I think those claims are all equally unsupportable and equally lacking in notability, but they do exist. If this is really worth adding, we could say something like: "The protest was unruly, members of the Black Student organization [...others] charged that they were assaulted or threatened, or called racial slurs, the college Republicans chapter, and Breitbart.com itself, complained that protesters threatened Yiannopoulos". Or (even more brief): "both supporters of Yiannopoulos and protesters accused one another of violence or intimidation following the protest". Nblund (talk) 22:17, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

The Washinting Times is pretty mainstream, as is Brietbart and the Daily Caller, and far more read than the De Paul Online (a student paper) and far, far more notable. In one month alone, Breitbart has 17M unique visitors and the Daily Caller has 12M. That's huge. What they aren't is leftist, but that's not a requirement for notability. If you have other sources you want to include, with nuance go for it. So long as they are verifiable.Mattnad (talk) 01:34, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

DUE WEIGHT emphasizes the importance of discussing relevant experts or concerned parties, it's not a matter of web traffic. In this case, Breitbart.com probably does qualify because it's the outlet that Yiannopoulos works for. But the Depaulia also qualifies, because it's the paper for the University where the events occurred, and because it's quoting a statement from a protest organizer. The statement by the University President, who was critical of the protesters (already cited), and the critical editorial from the Tribune is also arguably pretty significant. Just listing every nonsensical accusation is WP:COATRACK. Are there specific things from specific sources you want to add to what I suggested above?

I don't think "verifiability" is really a consideration if we're just repeating wholly unfounded accusations to begin with. Are we agreed that these can't really be cited as facts? Because I think we should take that to the RS noticeboard if not. Nblund (talk) 03:33, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

EDIT: I do agree that we could also note that the University president criticized the protesters, in addition to apologizing to the student body/criticizing Yiannopoulos, and we could add the stuff about reimbursements, the DePaul paper also reports this. Since I think we both agree on these edits, I went ahead and added them. We should attempt to limit the length of this discussion, since it wasn't even the only appearance with unruly protesters. Nblund (talk) 04:13, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

Multiple RS connect BLM to the DePaul incident. No sources argue there was no connection. Giving the connection/no-connection positions equal weight is a misinterpretation of WP:DUE. James J. Lambden (talk) 19:20, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

FYI: I went ahead and posted an RS noticeboard request on this specific statement, and also asked for general feedback on the usage of sources like the Washington Times. Nblund (talk) 20:49, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

Watch the video, good grief. Y'all complain about "right-wing sources" when Wikipedia itself is one large left-wing source. Then again, that makes it all come together, like a delicious pie. Mmmm... 2601:192:4201:B40:DC3C:EDA9:DDEC:6EA (talk) 16:20, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 10 July 2016

In the "Career" section, there is an out of place line that states "Yiannopoulos has said that his homosexuality was a choice he made to rebel against his parents.[15]" The cited article is a satirical/sarcastic piece Yiannopoulos wrote to convey how ridiculous it is for people to consider homosexuality a choice. He is not saying he actually made that choice. This line in the Wikipedia article is very misleading and should be removed.

2601:4C3:4000:7001:3DDC:4B40:E651:ABA4 (talk) 14:50, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

 Done I read the article and it's obvious satire. Quoting it out of context in a BLP is bad form. Even if it were sincere there's the issue of weight - no mentions in independent sources. James J. Lambden (talk) 04:00, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

Looks good. I added that line as a replacement for a lengthy quote from the cited article, but it was not a step in the right direction, and removing it was appropriate. I've seen other sources where he says similar things, as well statements where he directly contradicts that by saying he would chose to be straight if he could. All of the independent sources are too flimsy considering the BLP issues, and his style is almost always far too... satirical, I guess, to be taken at face value. Grayfell (talk) 04:30, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

Dropping out of Manchester and Cambridge

Drmies removed some text from the article ('In 2015, in an article titled "I dropped out of Manchester and Cambridge but it’s honestly fine," he wrote that he didn't believe a university degree was necessary for success, and that he believed he had achieved success without one') with the comment, "uninteresting: primary source". An experienced editor should not be removing content from articles because he personally finds it to be "uninteresting". Obviously not everyone is going to find the same things "interesting", and if editors removed everything that they personally found "uninteresting", there would in the end be nothing left. There is no reason a primary source cannot be used. WP:BLPPRIMARY stresses the need for caution in using such sources; it does not forbid them. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 00:15, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

Yiannopoulos has written many, many things, and since he's paid for it, presumably most of them are interesting to somebody. Drmies is entitled to their opinion, as are you. Relying on opinions about what is or is not interesting isn't going to work, and including every opinion he's written also isn't going to work. This is why we need independent sources commenting on his opinions. The article shouldn't be a directory of every opinion any editor considers of interest. Some facts are so basic to a biography that primary sources work (schools attended, birthdays, etc.), or they can be useful for responses to secondary sources, or to provide context for issues covered by sources to avoid misrepresenting someone. This is not one of those cases. Grayfell (talk) 00:28, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

Editors are free to use their judgment about what is significant and what is not. As far as I am concerned, Yiannopoulos' comments about achieving success without a university degree are particularly important, and throw interesting light on him and his career. They most certainly should be in the article, and Drmies (and you) were wrong to remove them. No policy states independent sources commenting on Yiannopoulos' comments are needed. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 00:37, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

I don't agree that they are particularly important, but neither of our opinions should be the deciding factor. Verifiable facts about his own education are relevant to a section on his education, but his opinions on what qualifies as success in a general sense seems arbitrary. This is especially bad here because the source is a humor-piece where he goes on and on about how fantastic he is and brags about all the celebrities he's met and how hot he is and then ends with a line about how modest he is, too (ha ha). Is this a serious reflection on his past? No, clearly not. Is this all just the setup to a punchline? Something in between? This isn't presented seriously, and it shouldn't be taken seriously. If we go by what some editors think is interesting, but what others don't, we end up with an edit war. This is why we should rely on independent sources for this kind of thing. Grayfell (talk) 01:16, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

• One of the purposes of BLPPRIMARY is to allow for primary sources to establish basic biographical facts which may be hard to come by otherwise. Birthdays are frequently sourced to primary documents, and usually there's nothing wrong with that. But User:FreeKnowledgeCreator has a habit of thinking that every single thing a person has ever said or done is automatically notable, and adding a source, even if it's a primary source, is then frequently used to argue "it's verified so it's notable". However, who cares what this subject has to say about getting academic degrees? It's not the person's forte, he didn't get one, his advice is unlikely to be repeated by parents to their children, and it does nothing for this biography. Grayfell's point is well taken: one of the functions of secondary sources is to establishes that certain facts about notable people are worthwhile repeating; even if they are presented seriously, they don't become of encyclopedic relevance until they are proven to have been noticed by serious and independent sources. I think I saw on Twitter that the subject got a new haircut, maybe for the Olympics or for the Republican convention. By FreeKnowledgeCreator's standards, this would be worthwhile including. No. Drmies (talk) 23:07, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
  • As I said, editors can use their judgment about what is significant. Drmies of course considers the content he removed insignificant, and he presents some irrelevant and inconsequential arguments ("his advice is unlikely to be repeated by parents to their children") that I am surprised to see any experienced editor use in a discussion. I would certainly not be in favor of mentioning every comment Yiannopoulos ever made about anything, but his comments about achieving success without a university degree certainly cast an interesting light on him and his career. Readers who understand how significant academic qualifications are usually seen as being should understand this, and would realize that the issue is in a entirely different category from Yiannopoulos' haircut. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 23:14, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

Judgement calls shouldn't be used as a licence to include trivia and half-sincere self-aggrandizing. As I said before, the source is not serious. Taking a joke article literally makes Wikipedia look foolish. I don't think the content would belong even if it was supported by a serious autobiographical work, but using this source for this content is just silly. We're not expected to take all statements hyper-literally regardless of context. What would that accomplish? Grayfell (talk) 00:17, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

FreeKnowledge, your judgment and mine differ and that's fine. Now, the guy's comment doesn't mean a thing: it is obvious that one can drop out of college and be successful, and if you think that needs proof, you can point someone to the article for Milo Yiannopoulos. I mean, it's self-evident. And trivial. As for "experienced editor"--you are an experienced editor, yet you have a problem with someone imagining a readership for this article at the same time that you fail to recognize that the article itself is proof of the trite statement made by the subject himself--and that article is read by the reader. It seems to me that you are not imagining readers at all. And by the way, let's not overstate "academic qualifications"--we're talking about an undergraduate degree in English, the kind of degree that gets you a job at Starbucks. Grayfell, I like what you say about joking and taking stuff literally: pace Trump we're not going to go to hell because of political correctness but because of literalism. Drmies (talk) 00:31, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

Origins

Are there any reliable sources on his origins? This has been changed so much in the article, often with unreliable sources, and they tell a different story each time.

• Where was he born?
• Of what origin are his parents?
• If he was born abroad, when did he move to the UK?

Some might see this as uninteresting trivia, but it is important to a figure who bases a lot of his material on his identity. Particularly this recent trend of him mentioning Jewish ancestry. '''tAD''' (talk) 14:09, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 20 July 2016

Yiannopoulos' claim, "if [I am a white supremacist], I must be the first black-dick-sucking white supremacist in history," is demonstrably false (see: http://crooksandliars.com/2014/04/report-white-supremacist-was-caught-80s), which should be noted.

216.165.95.67 (talk) 19:16, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

That's not exactly relevant. His statement was rhetoric given in his usual provocative/sarcastic manner, not a serious scholarly opinion on the history of interracial fellatio. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 19:35, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

I've removed the quote. It's messy to be picking inflammatory, off-the-cuff quotes to try and support contentious content like this. If this is the only response he's made to being called a white supremacist, he hasn't really made a response worth mentioning. The Crooks and Liars source doesn't mention Yiannopoulos, so it is totally irrelevant. Using that source would be WP:SYNTH, which is not acceptable. Grayfell (talk) 20:34, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 20 July 2016

Text under "Ideological position" should be changed from 'Yiannopoloulos has rejected accusations that he is a white supremacist, stating "if that's the case, I must be the first black-dick-sucking white supremacist in history"[86]' to 'Yiannopoloulos has rejected accusations that he is a white supremacist, falsely[86] stating "if that's the case, I must be the first black-dick-sucking white supremacist in history"[87],' with a link from [86] to < http://crooksandliars.com/2014/04/report-white-supremacist-was-caught-80s >.

In response to the above comment, the point is relevant I would argue, because, while Yiannopoulos' rhetoric may be sarcastic/provocative, he is nevertheless pointedly suggesting that, because he has engaged in sexual relations (as is implied) with a black man, it would be impossible for him to be a white supremacist - which is indeed pertinent to his own view of his ideological position, but which is also, as stated, demonstrably false. It is possible both to be a white supremacist and to have had sexual relations with a black person, and to quote Yiannopoulos without comment is tacitly to accept the validity of his reasoning.

216.165.95.67 (talk) 19:48, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

I've removed the quote. Per above, that source is useless here, but we need more context. Using a gossip column to pick an inflammatory quote sets a bad precedent. If more reliable sources haven't commented on accusations of white supremacy (and I bet they have), neither should Wikipedia. Grayfell (talk) 20:38, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

I just want to say that the first thing I thought when I saw his statement was "Yeah, right, who could imagine a white supremacist having sex with a black?" If he really meant that he's naive and sheltered. Doug Weller talk 20:56, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

The alt-right isn't know for its sincerity, so who knows? Even if he didn't mean it, he still might be naive and sheltered. Grayfell (talk) 21:04, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 21 July 2016

On July 19th, 2016 Milo Yiannopoulos' Twitter account was banned permanently following some of his supporters to tweet racist tweets to Leslie jones following a critical review of Ghostbusters by Yiannopoulos. The result is people from both sides of the aisle coming together to attack Jack Dorsey because the censorship factor in the ban along with no banning people who openly call for the killing of Donald J Trump... and ISIS sympathizers. The result is that #FreeNero was #1 trend for over 16 hours on Twitter and an overall outcry for the ending of censorship.

MrSuperEditor123 (talk) 00:36, 21 July 2016 (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. You would also need to provide reliable sources for these claims as they relate to Yiannopoulos, which almost certainly don't exist. Grayfell (talk) 01:48, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

DUE

The majority of the coverage of Yiannopoulos is quite critical. As this is a living person, we have to abide by WP:BLP and only include critical opinions covered in very reliable sources and that is properly attributed and a non-minority view. I believe that the Guardian article which HappyWaldo removed was from a reliable source that reflected a non-minority view, and was properly attributed. As such, I will be reverting his removal of it. PeterTheFourth (talk) 23:55, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

Is this a reliable source for the background of recent event?

[3]

I don't know much about either the Verge or the author, but it doesn't strike me as a conservative-leaning website. It is mulled over here whether it was a final warning or related only to one event. '''tAD''' (talk) 00:05, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

The author of this article understands how twitter works (just like most of those reading this page understand how Wikipedia and probably Twitter work), which is very different from most other sources where it's fairly clear that the author of those articles have no idea at all what is going on inside twitter and are probably technologically illiterate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.61.69.11 (talk) 15:37, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

http://www.businessinsider.com/milo-yiannopoulos-fighting-twitter-ban-2016-7 Another Impartial Source. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.61.69.11 (talk) 17:31, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

First amendment claims

Neither the Guardian source nor Breitbart source say that Yiannopoulos says his ban is a violation of his supposed first amendment rights. Quite possibly because as he's not an American citizen, he doesn't have any even if it did apply to Twitter which it doesn't. As such, I have removed the sentence.DanceHallCrasher (talk) 12:38, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

Aliens in the USA absolutely enjoy the entire spectrum of First Amendment Rights under the law. The Supreme Court addressed this specifically in 1945 when the high court held that “Freedom of speech and of press is accorded aliens residing in this country” (Bridges v. Wixon, 326 U.S. 135, 148). Likewise the rest of the Bill of Rights, including the more commonly understood 2nd, 4th and 5th amendments. The court has yet to directly address any limitations on the rights of those here without permission, but in 1982 said that children of illegal aliens have the right to a public elementary education (Plyler v. Doe, 457 U.S. 202). In general, anything deemed a "fundamental right" in the US Constitution is construed as existing without regard to government. In other words, the right to free association, speech and religious belief (1A) exists not because of government, but prior to the existence of government. Therefore, the right exists at a human level and must be protected by our Constitution. Generally, the only rights denied to non-citizens are those specific to the functional duties of actual citizenship - voting, holding federal office and the like. Every other right has been recognized when put to test before the court - even the right to keep and bear arms (though still undefined for undocumented aliens). So yes, Milo can say what he wants, own guns and be free from unwarranted search while in the USA, the same as me. -- signed by an anon 11:38 26 July 2016 (EST)

In fact I did not remove them, as I was edit conflicted with HappyWaldo's edit which addresses the problem.DanceHallCrasher (talk) 12:40, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

Thanks to both of you anyway, people get really confused about the First Amendment - or more likely they never bother to try to understand what it means. Doug Weller talk 14:31, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

To the IP - First amendment rights don't stop Facebook, Twitter, Wikipedia, etc from banning people from using their websites. The First Amendment "prohibits the making of any law respecting an establishment of religion, impeding the free exercise of religion, abridging the freedom of speech, infringing on the freedom of the press, interfering with the right to peaceably assemble, or prohibiting thepetitioning for a governmental redress of grievances." In other words, it's about governments, not companies, etc. Doug Weller talk 18:36, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

Religion, ethnicity et al

Fellow editors, A recent change was made to the Religion field in the Infobox, modifying this from "Roman Catholic" to "Jewish"; the edit summary suggesting that this change was sourced to an interview on "The Rubin Report". Given that Jewish can refer to both religion and ethnicity, and that "Roman Catholic" is mentioned in the article body, and in Categorisation, I have reverted this change, pending formation of a consensus here. Thoughts? - Ryk72 ^'c.s.n.s.' 05:58, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

I agree it's ambiguous. In this recent article he self-identified as "a gay man of Jewish descent". It sounds like that's strictly a description of his ethnicity. Kelly ^hi! 15:54, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

It's a joke, you dweebs. That religion is just as much hostile to his lifestyle as his muslim antagonists. Bizarre you can't see his sarcasm - or how he in later posts ridicules Wikipedia for this fanatic claim.

                 "The Jewish magazine Tablet wrote that Yiannopoulos has "recently taken to claiming, when it suits him, matrilineal Jewish heritage..." I think this is a derogatory remark. Is anyone planning to change this? the article is not oped for editing, so It seems like someone of the editing staff is being  biased and non acadamic here. He can be both Jewish and Catholic if he's father is Catholic and mother is jewish. I don't understand why this is a a matter of sneering or even debating. someone? Akivaragen (talk) 10:55, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

He certainly has at various times talked about being of Jewish descent in reasonably serious terms. That doesn't make it true necessarily but it's something that he has said, particularly in the context of anti-semitic attacks etc. However, I think he's been fairly clear about being a catholic and that this is his religion. 86.128.232.59 (talk) 14:00, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

Recent edits

Recent reverts, which constitute edit warring, like these involve inclusion of non-reliable sources, WP:WEASELing with the purpose of making the article fail WP:NPOV, and original research. User:TheTruthiness please provide an explanation for your edits and try to convince other editors to gain consensus rather than edit warring.Volunteer Marek (talk) 23:57, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

Lede/ Proposed or suggested mod

Isn't "pundit" or "commentator" more accurate than "journalist"? IMHO/NPV Milo is very candidly a highly opinionated individual. Journalistic neutrality and objectivity are really just not characteristic of Milo. His fans and detracters really would agree don't you think? Wikidgood (talk) 11:10, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

Probably commentator? The majority of what he writes tends to be opinion pieces, and his fame and coverage comes from his beliefs about things. I think you're good to reword as such. PeterTheFourth (talk) 11:13, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

If we applied the requirement of neutrality and objectivity before we called people jounalists, there would be very few BLPs (but quite a lot of BDPs) that qualify. We call people what reliable sources call them, and enough refer to him as a journalist to justify the label. Only in death does duty end (talk) 08:32, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

Leslie Jones "received additional racist insults and other abuse from Yiannopoulos's followers."

there isn't any proof/citations accompanying this statement to render it factual; the citations following the statement only lead to two articles covering the fact that Yiannopoulos did criticize Jones on Twitter and was banned, but neither make any mention of Yiannopoulos's followers being a notable group who insulted Jones. although it is quite possible (and probable) that a large demographic of those who insulted Jones followed Yiannopoulos on the platform, there is no way to prove this unless someone would like to take the time to actually analyze how many of those Twitter users who insulted Jones on Twitter followed Yiannopoulos, then determining if that portion of users is/was significant enough to show that there is/was a correlation between Yiannopoulos's followers and those who insulted Jones. however, since Twitter is still extremely active, any sort of statistic drawn from Twitter users is still subject to fluctuation. in the meantime, it's probably best to remove and/or alter this statement to make the page on Yiannopoulos more factual, removing the assumption that Yiannopoulos's followers were the ones who insulted Leslie Jones. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.59.33.200 (talk) 17:03, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

That kind of analysis would be WP:OR. Wikipedia uses reliable sources. Source agree that Yiannopoulos's tweets led to an increase in abuse. We could add more of those sources, but that would just be WP:CITECLUTTER, so it would be better to avoid that, if possible. Grayfell (talk) 21:00, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

Time magazine [4] say he "reportedly spearheaded" the abuse. That seems fair to include unless there's absolute proof. I don't know why, in this world where everything is screenshot to bite you on the arse later on, no source has shown any proof that he was consciously leading an army of white supremacist trolls. '''tAD''' (talk) 21:09, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

Since all / most of the sources are biased against conservatives, we have to be careful not to repeat their bias in WP's voice per WP:NPOV. The Verge is from Vox (notoriously liberal); The Hill is notoriously liberal; Twitter (interviewed in PC Magazine) has again and again come under fire for bias and censorship against conservatives; TIME is not exactly known for its political neutrality, either. No one with a conscience could claim these are neutral sources with a straight face. Why are there no neutral or even conservative sources to balance those out, with appropriate attribution of opinion all around? Jujutsuan (Please notify with {{re}} talk | contribs) 21:11, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

We do not require the use of neutral sources, but rather, policy requires us to neutrally summarize what the full range of reliable sources say about the matter. Anyone trying to argue, for example, that Time magazine is not an acceptable source is very likely to be disappointed here. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:46, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

Expecting screenshots of a gotcha moment assumes he didn't realize what would happen when he started insulting Jones. Are sources seriously claiming that he couldn't have known how his followers would've behaved when he joined in the abuse? They seem pretty clear on that to me. His own tweets where clearly insulting and followed days of targeted abuse. Actually, months of abuse, since Yiannopoulos been part of the gang insulting the film's cast and crew and whining about its existence since before it was even filmed. Nobody is claiming he said "Go forth and harass her, and don't hold back on the racism, please." That's not a realistic threshold, and that only works if we demand an overly literal definition of incitement. That runs against common sense about how social media works. Twitter didn't expect that, other sources don't expect that, and neither should we.

As for biased sources, the reliable conservative sources I've seen agree that Jones was harassed and insulted beyond acceptability. If not by Yiannopoulos, then by the "eggs" who came along later. If you know of any news sources which meet guiidelines, go for it, but I doubt we're going to see a drastic change in how this is covered. Opinion pieces could be considered, but they would need attribution. I think it's still too premature to be adding a lot of those, and they bring with them a lot of BLP problems as well. Grayfell (talk) 21:35, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

I think this provides a balanced overview of the back-and-forth tweets that led to Milo's suspension. If we can find a reliable source that covers the tweets themselves in a non-NPOV way, then it should be used. - HappyWaldo (talk) 21:42, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

There are many, many sources covering the ban and the tweets, so it's not clear what you're asking for. That link screams of false balance to me, as he glosses over a lot of important context. A Youtube personality like Philip DeFranco isn't a reliable source, and in this case it's really, really not a neutral one despite his superficial impartiality. This would also be WP:BLPSPS violation. Grayfell (talk) 22:11, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

I'm not asking that we cite a YouTube personality, but that we use a source that gives a balanced assessment, minus any left/right bias. - HappyWaldo (talk) 22:21, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

Sources are not required to be unbiased or neutral. Only in death does duty end (talk) 08:34, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

[5]

[6]

[7]

[8]

[9]

[10]

[11]

[12] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.61.69.11 (talk) 05:21, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

Adding sources to section on The Triggering event

I've found one source which I don't honestly know that much about, but has an article that would solve the missing citation issue quite nicely, if the source is reliable. [[13]] Someone want to give feedback? Sage (Buzz me) 19:53, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

I am unsure as to what sources are being requested for, but I would suggest a source with comments such as '“Stop treating us like children,” the red-faced young woman whined, amidst a tantrum that would look familiar to any parent of a toddler' would probably be best avoided.DanceHallCrasher (talk) 20:12, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

Although it appears I have missed the point, namely that the woman in question was deliberately acting that way and not being serious.DanceHallCrasher (talk) 20:14, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

The Triggering event, under heading 2.6 in the Table of contents, "needs additional citation for verification". This citation which shows the protests that occurred at the event, would be a perfect addition. I just need to know if the site itself is considered reliable. Sage (Buzz me) 20:19, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

I don't know about Heat Street in general. The site looks like nothing but clickbait to me, but looks can be deceiving. WP:CONTEXTMATTERS, and that specific article is short, gossip column-like, and low on substance, so I would not use it for anything significant or controversial. Grayfell (talk) 20:38, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

It's not a reliable source.Volunteer Marek (talk) 22:37, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

@Grayfell: I hear you. Maybe this, which is a meatier, overall better article, would be a better source, though campus reform is biased. [[14]] Sage (Buzz me) 20:43, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

This is a pretty good source, I think, as it's in the format of a respectable article and the site itself is pretty good, I think. [[15]] And here's Fox News, which is definitely a good source. [[16]] That having been said, I'm going to add the Fox citation and await approval on the others. Sage (Buzz me) 21:01, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

The Fox News article is directly taken from HeatStreet, as mentioned in the byline.

A look at the sources used at Campus Reform is telling. That article cites "drudgereportarchives-net.africancrisis.org" (wow), HeatStreet, and a blog, all of which are just recycling Campus Reform's own material. There's also a LA Times story which doesn't actually mention Campus Reform, but the only reliable sources used at that article are from The Chronicle of Higher Education. They're paywalled, so I can't read it, but the titles suggests that they're not praising CR's impartial journalism. Wikipedia's article on them is not a definitive argument against using them, but I think it highlights the problem, here. WP:RS calls for a "reputation for fact-checking and accuracy", which this site doesn't have.

This is especially bad as a foundation for WP:BLP content. From what I've been able to find, the entire event was pretty much only covered by Breitbart (which is specifically not impartial in this situation for multiple reasons) and a handful other questionable sites in the same walled-garden. I would prefer to remove it from this article entirely, but if better sources exist, The Triggering article could sure benefit from them, also. Grayfell (talk) 21:14, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

I've never heard of them before, but looking at the New Boston Post it seems like it might be a good source. Their ideology is transparent and they're presenting the story factually and without editorializing (superficially, at least). I wouldn't use them for anything controversial without looking into it closer, but for establishing that he appeared at the event, this seems fine. Since the article only mentions Yiannopoulos's role as being part of a larger event, I'm not totally clear why we need to mention this at all, but if we are going to mention it, that seems like the source to use. Grayfell (talk) 21:43, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

Alright, so are we just going to get rid of it entirely, or add the New Boston Post as the source? I vote to keep it and change the source, but I'd like someone else to weigh in. Sage (Buzz me) 01:00, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

Taking a small look around the New Boston post website it seems like it's actually a pretty good source. They're very transparent about their bias and they don't put too much extra opinion into their articles most of the time. Sage (Buzz me) 01:21, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

I would accept that source, but still prefer to leave it out. He's made many appearances, after all, and this one is notably mainly because of niche coverage of its protests, not its speaker line-up. I don't see much discussion of anything in particular that Yiannopoulos said or did there that is encyclopedically significant. Let's see if anyone else cares to weigh in. Grayfell (talk) 01:38, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

I'm going to assume that's a no. @Grayfell: I'm willing to defer to you, let's just remove that section from the entry. Sage (Buzz me) 12:36, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

Birthplace

Milo Y. was not born in Greece, but in Kent. His birth name is "Milo Hanrahan". Source: http://search.findmypast.co.uk/record?id=bmd%2fb%2f1984%2f11%2f113036475 Have edited infobox to reflect these changes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.255.4.184 (talk) 21:37, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

That is not a reliable source. New sources should be discussed below, at #Birthplace?. Grayfell (talk) 23:45, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

It wasn't a source I provided (see above), but I had read this talk page, noted the information and checked it out (it's a bona fide source, but not, to my knowledge, one we can link to directly). Luther Blissetts (talk) 00:01, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

Does British Government Edits Include Old Photo/Image of Milo

Everyone that knows of Milo, knows of him with the Donald Trumpesque shock of obviously-dyed white hair. So while reading about the British Government employees making such efforts at obviously negatively editing his wikipedia article (as an equally obvious attempt at smearing poo on Donald Trump, aka "Daddy", first impression is a 2013 picture of Milo with dark hair. Don't bother arguing that a current image of Milo is unavailable, we all know better. I'm just saying that you folks should at least maintain the illusion of neutrality while using Wikipedia to advance your socialist, anti-Trump agenda. This photo crosses that line and shows the whole world what you are up to.Jonny Quick (talk) 03:42, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

So, find a better photo, Jonny Quick. In other words, fix it yourself. 2601:1C0:6D01:1800:E897:5561:DE47:3E3C (talk) 03:51, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

Sorry, learned my lesson there. I have no desire to take on an entire army of government-funded socialists using Wikpedia to advance their political agenda under the guise of making an encyclopedia. My role here is to make the call and let peer pressure run it's natural course. At least those of us that read these Discussion Pages will know that it wasn't done by oversight, but instead deliberately. I wonder where your anonymous account traces back to?Jonny Quick (talk) 03:54, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

Jonny Quick, what a lot of assumptions you've made about the disruptive, reverted edits that were recorded by Channel4's twitter bot @WhitehallEdits. To answer your question: No, @WhitehallEdits did not upload the "Old Photo/Image of Milo". That photo, if you click on it here, will tell you: who uploaded it: David_Gerard, and; when: 15 December 2015. As for your assumptions that wikipedia's editors are "an entire army of government-funded socialists using Wikipedia to advance their political agenda" (a "socialist, anti-Trump agenda"), please will you read WP:AGF which asks people to assume good faith, and the three core polices WP:Verifiability, WP:NPOV, and WP:NOR.

--Luther Blissetts (talk) 10:05, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

I didn't upload the original - I cropped it from File:Milo Yiannopoulos, Journalist, Broadcaster and Entrepreneur-1441 (8961808556).jpg. It's by far the most suitable headshot for the top of the article in Commons:Category:Milo_Yiannopoulos, which (per Jonny Quick) means we do need more decent photos of him under a free licence. If anyone here is in touch with Mr Yiannopoulos, they could ask him for an up-to-date photo under CC-by-sa, I've no doubt he understands the value of a decent photo on one's Wikipedia article - David Gerard (talk) 12:05, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

Birthplace?

I've seen conflicting statements,but the article linked to says he was born in Greece.-LebaneseArab (talk) 01:37, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

An IP changed the information about his birthplace, I have reverted the changes. -- GB fan 01:41, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

The source lists his birthplace as Greece-LebaneseArab (talk) 02:05, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

His birth name is Hanrahan - this is his first directorship with his father's company: https://www.duedil.com/director/908919443/milo-hanrahan. Clearly he was not born in Greece with the surname Yiannopoulos, since in the first discussion on birthplace an unsigned IP gave the link to his correct birth data. What's the best way to resolve this? Luther Blissetts (talk) 00:07, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

The way to resolve this is easy. Find a reliable source that is better than the source that is in the article right now. -- GB fan 00:11, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

Until someone deigns to write an article in a approved publication about his claim to have been born in Greece (made originally I think when he was using the name Milo Wagner on wikipedia in his own bio https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Milo_Andreas_Wagner&diff=177006376&oldid=159810081) and references the actual birth data (as linked to by the unsigned IP), then can we at least place an or something similar to alert the reader? Luther Blissetts (talk) 00:20, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

I see nothing to show that the LA Times is an unreliable source. If you think it it's unreliable take it to Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard and ask the question. -- GB fan 00:28, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

I'm sure no-one is claiming that the LA Times is unreliable source. A reliable source like his birth record isn't something we can link to in the wikipedia article itself. http://www.genesreunited.co.uk/search/results?sourcecategory=birthsutf002c%20marriages%20utf0026%20deaths&collection=births%20utf0026%20baptisms&datasetname=england%20utf0026%20wales%20births%201837-2006&firstname=milo&firstname_variants=true&lastname=hanrahan&birthyear=1984&birthyear_offset=2&region=great%20britain Luther Blissetts (talk) 00:36, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

What source are you saying should be marked as an unreliable source? -- GB fan 00:45, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

"or something similar to alert the reader" - meaning that if the words 'born in Greece' can't be removed from the sentence, then is there some way we can alert the reader to the contentious nature of this. Otherwise we're leaving misleading information in, when it doesn't need to be there. We can't use the public records of his birth and companies. Luther Blissetts (talk) 01:07, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

Would it be acceptable to just remove "born in Greece", so the sentence says "was raised in the United Kingdom"?Luther Blissetts (talk) 01:13, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

Where do you get that his last name at birth was "Hanrahan"? This all seems to be based on the declaration by an ip that his last name at birth was Hanrahan. Then that same ip doing original research with public records to say he was born in Kent. We have nothing reliable that even remotely suggests there is anything contentious here. After (edit conflict), no his birth place is reliably sourced and should remain until we have reliable sources to counter that. -- GB fan 01:20, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

We know that his surname at birth was Hanrahan due to: his birth certificate; we know his birthday because he wrote about it; so we know from these PRIMARY and SELFPUB sources he was not born in 1983 as SELFPUB claimed by Milo Wagner and as on the PRIMARY companies data for Wrong Agency Ltd, but in 1984 (see the other companies); we know his father Nic Hanrahan in 2013 on twitter was arguing with Guardian journalist Charles Arthur; we know his paternal grandmother, Petronella Hanrahan, about whom he wrote an article in Breitbart and whom he posthumously brought into the Kernal tribunal. I agree we need to wait for a reliable SECONDARY source that shows he was born in Chatham, Kent, in 1984 and not Greece in 1983 as mentioned in this wikipedia article and previously claimed by Milo Wagner. I am uncertain as to whether an interview [SELFPUB] is necessarily RS if it's not verifiable. If he says in an interview that he used to be a lawyer, and the interviewer publishes that without their own verification of his claim, we would then be able to say on wikipedia that he was a lawyer usig that source. As clumsy as my presentation has been on this topic (sorry!), the absence of verifiability and the SECONDARY source conflict with verifiable reliable NPOV PRIMARY sources is my main concern. -- Luther Blissetts (talk) 21:19, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

Possible development on privilege grant?

As has been mentioned before, there's a lot of critical material, and I don't know enough about the man and the issues to even begin to adjudicate what should be included, but I ran across the following which claims that the privilege grant has not fulfilled its pledge and that the money was transferred to Yiannopoulos' account.

https://www.reddit.com/r/EnoughTrumpSpam/comments/4y8rb2/the_donald_monderator_breitbart_editor_and_trump/?st=is06bj2p&sh=a07a9f6e

Reddit is not exactly what I would use as an academic source (and most of the links are images of tweets) and the tone leaves no illusions as to the author's position on the issue, but I thought it was worth bringing up so someone a little more knowledgable could follow up/update with whatever was 'wiki worthy' or otherwise determine if this is worth following up on.

He is apparently due to address it tomorrow, though I'm not sure where.

Systemchalk (talk) 18:56, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

On his podcast two weeks ago (The Milo Yiannopoulos Show, Episode 20, interview with Chuck Dixon), he mentioned that he would have news regarding the Privilege Grant soon. Since his podcast airs every Friday, I'm guessing that that's where he'll announce it. Once he releases the episode and I have a chance to listen to it, hopefully we can update that part. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 19:26, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

I'm going to suggest we wait for secondary coverage before updating this (e.g. no reddit posts, no podcasts by the subject of the article.) PeterTheFourth (talk) 21:21, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

Secondary coverage at The Daily Beast: http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2016/08/19/breitbart-editor-milo-yiannopoulos-takes-100-000-for-charity-gives-0.html PeterTheFourth (talk) 21:20, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

Although I've enjoyed the author's republished National Enquirer headlines [17] and dish on the sex lives of campaign staffers [18], I don't think Resnick and The Daily Beast are adequate for claims of criminal wrongdoing. James J. Lambden (talk) 22:12, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

I think more is needed, but neither of those links have anything to do with Yiannopoulos. We should wait until more info is known for BLP and WP:NOTNEWS reasons, but I don't think The Daily Beast is inherently unreliable as a source. The first is a story about a tabloid's coverage of a scandal and Trump's later endorsement of that tabloid, which is not relevant to this. The second is about a lawsuit between Trump and a former campaign aide, which is also not relevant. The Daily Beast does have some problems, but those stories aren't examples. Grayfell (talk) 22:41, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

Isn't The Daily Beast=Newsweek? They are owned and run by the same company. I don't think there are questions about Newsweek as a reliable source. 2601:1C0:6D01:1800:E897:5561:DE47:3E3C (talk) 03:58, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

Some developments on the issue of the privilege grant here. Autarch (talk) 17:16, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

I edited the article earlier to reflect developments earlier to find that it had been removed on the following grounds:

• BLP and undue weight
• MacLennon not being an unbiased observer
• The Guardian not being a WP:RS for coverage of right-wing persons.

As I understand it, the Guardian is considered a WP:RS - can anyone see why the source cited isn't? As for WP:BLP, that requires RS, which I thought the article I cited was. Given that the subject of the article not only announced the grant, but hosted a telethon for it and the donations are about US$100,000 it is surely a matter of WP:BALANCE to include it - not to mention delays and that the subject himself admitted that he had missed a filing date. As for MacLennan, she is cited in the article - what WikiPedia policy is that in violation of and does the same apply to Blaire White? Autarch (talk) 19:43, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

Reliability depends on context. Guardian is a far-left publication and Yiannopolis is right-wing media personality. Surely we can do better. Given that this is a BLP of a controversial character, and the content in question is decidedly negative, I think a better source is absolutely required here. Eclipsoid (talk) 20:08, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

On what basis is the Guardian far-left? Autarch (talk) 20:18, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

The Guardian is generally considered to be a centrist and centre-left liberal newspaper. An example of a far-left newspaper would be The Morning Star. It's considered to be a reliable source RS. When another RS appears, that too can be included. Luther Blissetts (talk) 20:35, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

The article's published under the Guardian's "US news blog." The relevant guideline is Wikipedia:Verifiability#Newspaper_and_magazine_blogs. Do we know whether it's subject to standard fact-checking? Rory Carroll (the author) is a reputable journalist. I'm not familiar with MacLennan - she appears to be a conservative Youtuber sympathetic to Yiannopoulos. The claims in your edit are either attributed or corroborated by Yiannopoulos so if it were restored I wouldn't object.

In terms of WP:WEIGHT there are two possible stories here: (1) mismanagement (2) intentional deception. (1) isn't too important ("man has difficulty organizing first charity drive") (2) or questions of (2), depending on who's doing the questioning, would be. James J. Lambden (talk) 20:56, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

The article reports on the grant, so updates about the status of grant are relevant and should be included if we discuss the grant at all. A handful of sources seem to agree that it wasn't managed very well, Yiannopoulos sort-of agreed and sort of apologized and said he'd fix it. The ideology or supposed ideology of sources is irrelevant. The idea that the left-wing sources aren't usable for right-wing personalities (or vice versa) is totally false. We go by WP:RS, we don't try and balance left vs. right, because that's false balance, and we don't give room to discredit a source by claiming it politically disagrees with who it's covering. The Daily Beast sort of broke the story, and some sources picked up on it. (Mic, Newsy, maybe others), and The Guardian expanded on it. Those are broadly reliable. The task should be figuring out how to reflect the coverage in a neutral way. Grayfell (talk) 21:34, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

Breitbart

Since no doubt someone there is watching this talkpage, perhaps someone could give them some lessons in how to read an edit history - namely who it was who *removed* the vandalism. Only in death does duty end (talk) 10:52, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

I noticed that sterling example of Breitbart investigative journalism too, Only in death does duty end. I also found it mildly amusing that they missed months of previous edits on both Breitbart's and Yiannopoulos' page, all of which were rather swiftly reverted. Luther Blissetts (talk) 20:33, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

Just for information, the now infamous Whitehall Edits appears to have made a brief yet similar point earlier this morning. Luther Blissetts (talk) 20:45, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

how did he become rich?

A recent newspaper article refers to him running up a huge bill while shopping -- clearly, he has a lot of discretionary cash. This wikipedia article nowhere explains where his money came from.2602:304:CDA0:9220:8824:2C14:EBDB:B9FE (talk) 03:50, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

I don't see any evidence of him being rich, just spending some money in preparation for his upcoming tour. 213.205.251.19 (talk) 13:51, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

Persondata set

I have concerns about the Persondata set for this page. For example. Here, User:RaphaelQS added dual nationalities, British and Greek:

• | nationality = British, Greek

We only have verification of British nationality - by way of birth certificate and various companies data records e.g. Sentinel, Hipster, Caligula. Taking a look at Caligula's incorporation document, we can see both nationality (British) and date of birth (18 October 1984).

A minute later, User:RaphaelQS changed nationality to citizenship:

• | citizenship = British, Greek

As with nationality above, we have no verification for Greek citizenship. British citizenship is automatic (lex soli) by either his birth in Britain or if (without any other evidence other than possible circular reporting taken from his student-era persona/nom de plume 'Milo Andreas Wagner' by LATimes) IF he was born abroad, his citizenship of UK/Britain is automatic (lex soli) by virtue of having been born after 1983 to at least one British-born parent. The assumption that he holds Greek citizenship has not been verified by the subject themselves, and is in fact negated below.

A minute later, the same user added residence.

• | residence = United States

On 16 August 2016, Breitbart reported that "Twitter tried to dodge Milo's data request by falsely claiming that he lives in the United States of America". The subject's response was: "I do not live in the United States. I am a permanent UK resident at the address listed on my letter, and a citizen of the United Kingdom."

A few minutes later, the same user adds native name.

• | native_name = Μίλων Γιαννόπουλος

The subject is Milo Yiannopoulos. His native name is not a Greek language version of this name. He never writes in Greek, and he has not written about being a native speaker of Greek (only of German and English by his former nom de plume and German-oriented persona, Milo Andreas Wagner). The first instance of a greek version of MY's name was made by IP 90.211.39.208 on 31 March 2015: [19]. On 8 April 2015 IP 108.48.36.210 added adding category British People of Greek Descent, which is not a problematic category, as the subject has described themselves as "part Greek".

I have therefore been bold and will make edits to match the verifiable, reliable sources linked to above. Luther Blissetts (talk) 13:33, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

This is nice original research on your part, but it does not correspond to the reliable sources. Until you have reliable sources to back any of this up, wee need to go with what they say. -- GB fan 13:58, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

1) To quote User:Grayfell:

• "Some facts are so basic to a biography that primary sources work (schools attended, birthdays, etc.)"

The most reliable sources for name, birthdate, birthyear are contained in those WP:BLPPRIMARY documents, and as far as I am aware, these are considered to be RS, verifiable, and NPOV for any WP:BLP. Luther Blissetts (talk) 14:09, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

Find a secondary reliable source that ties the Yiannopoulos to Hanrahan. This is all based on that assumption. The birth certificate that has been shown does not say this and I have not seen anything that ties the two names together. -- GB fan 14:18, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

2) It's not original research. The 'reliable sources' you refer to are not verified by the companies documents, all of which, except the April Fool's Day company 'Wrong Agency', show the correct birth details and nationality for the subject. Therefore the companies data can be considered reliable. Since the Crunchbase site can be edited by anyone, the information could have been taken from anywhere (likely the subject's Wagner nom de plume). The LA Times site could have taken their information from the same unreliable source, a sort of journalistic Chinese whispers. For something so basic as birthdata and nationality it is perfectly acceptable to use WP:BLPPRIMARY sources. I would have preferred that you and other experienced editors discussed this at length, with some actual good reasons as to why you don't feel that this basic data (it's not original research) can be included, rather than a fast reversion with a claim that this basic data is unreliable. Luther Blissetts (talk) 14:31, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

3) In a world of puffed-up CVs, opinion blogs, lazy journalism, and badly researched articles, there is no more reliable source for birthdata and nationality than the documents cited above.Luther Blissetts (talk) 14:42, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

4) I did not, in my edit of persondata and corresponding text, add any data about Hanrahan being the birth name, so there's no need to provide any secondary evidence that ties the two names together at this juncture. The primary evidence for birthdata and nationality comes from the company data for the subject's company Caligula, which gives a birth date of 1984 and a nationality of British. As a legal document, this is infinitely more reliable and verifiable and NPOV than any multi-editor profile or student-journalist puff-piece on wikipedia. Even though the companies data it is a primary source, it can be used as a reliable source. Luther Blissetts (talk) 14:42, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

The subjects birth year of 1984 has now been corroborated by the subject: "I was born in 1984, not 1983" Luther Blissetts (talk) 21:21, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

When I said that about primary sources, the unwritten caveats where that the content was uncontroversial (which this is, a bit), and that it wouldn't require interpretation (which this does, a lot). From past experience, these kinds of documents tend to be misused more often than not, and they also turn out to be wrong or totally lacking some important detail fairly often. That he reported "British" as his nationality on a few brief government forms says nothing relevant about his early childhood, and he doesn't list any former names on them, either. The claim that Hanrahan is Yiannopoulos needs more. It may be true, but without a reliable source specifically saying that they are the same person, it's still absolutely WP:OR. That you didn't mention Hanrahan in the article is irrelevant, because you are accepting that name as used on a birth certificate without a clearly documented connection. Combining two sources to come to a third conclusion is WP:SYNTH. Looking over those links, I still don't get where the connections between the two names comes from. This is also getting into WP:BLP territory, so secondary sources would be much, much better for multiple reasons. Grayfell (talk) 22:08, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

Hi Grayfell, it is a bit controversial, I agree, which is why I think we ought not to mention unverifiable information in the article, even if from a secondary source, especially as it's contradicted by the details given by MY across the majority (bar one) of limited companies that he started.

I agree that the Hanarahan-Yiannopoulos connection needs more than his father's company data that lists a 19-year old person called Milo with a different surname but the same birth date. I realise the birthcert as provided by another user above is WP:OR. Thanks also for posting a link to WP:SYNTH - I'd not read that before. Is it also WP:SYNTH to use the Charles Arthur article in The Guardian that mentions a 27-year old Milo, from which one can work out the birth year to 1984? I know the birthyear is on the OR/Primary instructions to set up the companies mentioned in various Kernel-related Secondary RS. MY himself mentions his birthyear as 1984 on twitter - from the horse's mouth so to speak, but as I understand it, not necessarily acceptable to link to. I looked into the birth year because I noticed there'd been a previous edit-war, and I would never have know about the Hanarahan controversy if it hadn't already been mentioned on this talk page and in yet another edit-war.

I realise a lot of people use Wikipedia to get information about people from, so when Twitter wrote back to MY saying that as he was resident in the US (someone had, only a few days before the deadline, added 'Resident: United States' to the MY template), Twitter refused his data access request, and MY had to tell them their information was incorrect; that he lived in the UK and was a UK citizen. I know it's all highly controversial, but it's better to have a reliable article, even if it that means it doesn't include birth data, or nationality data. Personally I'd prefer removing all contentious data until proven without a shadow of a doubt. To my mind that includes sourcing info to multi-edit profiles like Crunchbase, and avoiding inclusion of controversial identity politics (that often appear to excuse bigotry - "I'm part-Greek" [I don't always pay my debts]; "I'm part-Jewish [so I can't possibly be anti-Semitic], "I'm Gay" [so I can't be a homophobe]).

I'm completely happpy for all data that can't be verified by multiple reliable sources - excluding puff-pieces, promotional pieces, self-pub pieces, multi-user-edited profiles, etc - to be removed entirely until such time as verifiable RS appear. What are your thoughts on that, should we remove birth date, nationality, etc? Luther Blissetts (talk) 01:05, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

I'm okay with using the primary documents for his birthday. I don't think it's controversial, so this is the kind of thing primary sources are good for. (As an aside, the Arthur article would be usable for this point if nothing better could be found. Template:Age as of date is handy for infoboxes and similar in this situation). What concerns me is claims about his nationality and ancestry. Simply put, Wikipedia takes people at their word for this kind of thing. If Yiannopoulos has unambiguously said he's gay/Greek/Jewish/Catholic, we accept that, and if it meets due weight, we report that. If it really is truly controversial, we'll know, because sources will be loud and clear. (I'm thinking this would be level of controversy comparable to Jamake Highwater's false claims of Cherokee ancestry. You might say it has to reach... the Jamake Highwater mark.) I don't see anything close to that here yet. Passing mentions, jokes, or cryptic asides don't necessarily cut it, which is a problem with Yiannopoulos, but we need a very good reason to doubt someone about this kind of thing otherwise, per WP:BLP. WP:CAT/EGRS and MOS:ID are a couple extra links that come to mind regarding this. Grayfell (talk) 01:48, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

Thank you, Grayfell, I'll take on board all your guidance and advice. Luther Blissetts (talk) 13:31, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

Hi @Grayfell:, A new article in Bloomberg, just added to the article states: A practicing Catholic (though he likes to mention that his maternal grandmother was Jewish when he’s accused of anti-Semitism). An editor has just re-entered Category: British people of Jewish descent; and made reference to his being of Jewish descent using Bloomberg article. The editor didn't include the context that MY mentioned his Jewish ancestry (i.e. when accused of antisemitism). Bizarrely, from this same article we can also now say that MY earned $20,000 over two nights as a prostitute in Los Angeles. Whether we can believe MY's identity politicking is another matter. Do we just accept the personas people build for themselves when they're reported in the press, or should we be more cautious about including it in this BLP article? Luther Blissetts (talk) 20:13, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

This is regarding this source. Hmm... I've removed the line and category about being of Jewish ancestry. The only line from the source mentioning it is the one you quote, which is pretty thin. This is a lengthy profile, but this is only a parenthetical mention used in a context which suggests either insincerity on Yiannopoulos's part, or doubt on Bloomberg's. I don't think this is compelling enough to include. Considering the context, I guess this could be presented as "he's said his maternal grandmother was Jewish", but that seems slightly weaselish, so I would just assume leave it out until something more substantial is found. If the only time he mentions his Jewish grandma truly is to deflect accusations of antisemitism, then that detail should be included. Otherwise, my take is that we should either leave it out, or find sources explaining this in more neutral terms.

As for the paid sex thing, the article should not be used as a platform for his own self aggrandizement. If this is supported by more than just his own bragging, then we could reassess, but otherwise it's too gossipy and unverifiable to be encyclopedic, in my opinion. The word prostitution (which isn't used by the source) has legal implications also, which complicates things. Grayfell (talk) 22:05, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

It doesn't matter what or what not he's trying to "deflect", he has stated multiple times that he has Jewish ancestry. As for the Tablet citation, it is hardly an independent source, since it is extremely "anti-Milo". — Confession0791 ^talk 06:34, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

How is the Tablet not independent? Not independent of what? Grayfell (talk) 06:54, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

The word he is looking for is 'unbiased'. It arguably isnt unbiased when related to Breitbart/Milo, which wouldnt be a problem for basic statements, it would be for opinions in a BLP. Only in death does duty end (talk) 09:06, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

Okay. So there are a handful of otherwise unreliable sources where he says it himself in passing. Normally that would be barely acceptable, but there are also a couple (at least) very critical sources specifically saying he's only mentioning it to deflect criticism. While they may or may not be biased in some way, they both seem generally like WP:RS, which is what matters. Still, I'm still inclined to leave it out if that's the best we've got. Grayfell (talk) 09:27, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

Normally there would not be an issue with a primary (the subject themselves) self-identification. However given Milo has constructed a number of personalities over the years there is significant doubt in a few of the self-descriptions he has made both in motivation and in factuality. 'Milo has stated he is of Jewish heritage' is about as far as you can take the conversation without running into a)opinion pieces that expose doubt or negatively imply ulterior motive, b)the BLP, c)resorting to original research into his family history to get clarity on the matter. Personally since at various times he has adopted German & Greek (and according to some of the OR performed above, his birth name is basically Irish) personas, I am of the opinion we should just leave anything related to his family history out unless it has the strongest of sourcing. He is British and a British citizen and leave it at that. Only in death does duty end (talk) 11:04, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

"People to unfollow"

Yes, such sections shouldn't be hagiographies, but I don't think this is important enough to note, it's a light-hearted list. The fact that Beyonce is listed higher for being inactive, and Obama is listed higher for being less interesting than eight years ago proves that. This wouldn't be put on either of their articles, and for good reason.

Also consider Mo Ansar at number 2. Ansar is another person who divides opinion on the web, but is unknown to people without a Twitter account. His Wikipedia page history seems to be a battle between two camps, and if I saw this reference be put on there, I would revert it straight away for its controversial/BLP nature. I'm going to be bold and remove the "people to unfollow" reference, but no water off my back if people disagree. Valentina Cardoso (talk) 01:29, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

I agree. It's a listicle which doesn't provide any real substance. Maybe, but only maybe, it would belong if there were other sources commenting on it or explaining why the list matters. Grayfell (talk) 02:29, 25 September 2016 (UTC)