Jump to content

Talk:Milo Yiannopoulos/Archive 3

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5

Pedophilia content

In the middle of the section on the pedophilia controversy, the article states that, "In making this statement, Yiannopolous is accurately distinguishing between pedophilia, hebephilia, and ephebophilia, in line with the Tanner stages, though the imprecise use of the term "pedophilia" in association with any sexual activity with an individual under the age of consent is common." That sentence needs to be removed or at least rephrased. It is a form of editorializing inappropriate to an encyclopedia. A properly written biography of a person does not contain statements that amount to, "His views on this subject are correct", or, "His statements about this topic are accurate" - not even if such statements are correct. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 00:55, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

Actually, policy explicitly states :WP:YESPOV Avoid stating facts as opinions. Uncontested and uncontroversial factual assertions made by reliable sources should normally be directly stated in Wikipedia's voice. Unless a topic specifically deals with a disagreement over otherwise uncontested information, there is no need for specific attribution for the assertion, although it is helpful to add a reference link to the source in support of verifiability. Further, the passage should not be worded in any way that makes it appear to be contested. As you have already stipulated, his statement is correct. His statement has been described as correct by multiple sources. There is no dispute or controversy that his statement is correct. (note that the rest of his statement is certainly controversial, but this particular fact is not) ResultingConstant (talk) 03:19, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
The material is currently worded, "Commentators such as Matthew Rozsa of Salon.com and Margaret Hartmann of New York magazine wrote that in making this statement, Yiannopolous is technically correct in distinguishing between pedophilia, hebephilia, and ephebophilia, but the authors also note that "pedophilia" is typically used to denounce relationships of the sort allegedly promoted by Yiannopoulos (those between 13 year olds and adults)", which appears to pose no problem. It is quite possible to avoid filling a biographical article with statements announcing that the article subject's views are correct, which is inappropriate as well as pitifully poor writing, without "stating facts as opinions." That the views of these commentators may be correct does not mean that they need to be presented in Wikipedia's voice. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 04:56, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
We do say something like this in Wikipedia's voice -- from pedophilia: "Pedophilia or paedophilia is a psychiatric disorder in which an adult or older adolescent experiences a primary or exclusive sexual attraction to prepubescent children.[1][2] Although girls typically begin the process of puberty at age 10 or 11, and boys at age 11 or 12,[3] criteria for pedophilia extend the cut-off point for prepubescence to age 13...." If we can say that there we can say that here. Caveat is, now that I've reread, our article says it is up to and including 13 rather than below 13, which I hadn't realized (did it change? I thought I looked it up some time ago). That is likely to be a sticky point. Wnt (talk) 15:11, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

For what it is worth, the American Psychiatric Association, in the DSM-5, does not give a specific age. it specifies "...a prepubescent child or children (generally age 13 or younger). The defining feature is sexual maturity, not age, and there is room for cases to be considered above and below the age 13 benchmark and be consistent with the definition. Ignatios2000 (talk) 23:39, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

British English

This has to be in British English!--Rævhuld (talk) 15:39, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

You could argue it either way to be honest. (MOS:TIES and MOS:RETAIN would be the two competing ENGVAR issues) He is British, but he is not really very relevant in Britain today - Breitbart and Trump being a US issue. Most of his 'fame' is derived from his US career, his tours of US educational institutions etc. The US controversies. Currently he is of much more relevance to the US reader than the British. I have seriously lost count of how many times I have had to explain to fellow Brits in the last week who he is. Only in death does duty end (talk) 16:20, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
The English used has to be consistent, and I would side with MOS:RETAIN here as it would be too difficult to all change date formats and English variations to their US counterparts. I see why in the age of Trump that MOS:TIES may seem relevant, but that really smacks of WP:RECENTISM in my view. Milo has written on other subjects other than Trump and US social/political issues, even if that may be hard to remember right now. HelgaStick (talk) 16:57, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
I strongly support using British English for all bios of british people, including here. And I dont agree that Trump & Breitbart are US issues, generally US presidents are worldwide issues and never more so than with Trump; and we now have Beitbart London so Breitbart is as relevant to the UK as to the US; and looking at the UK press every day as I do I would say Yiannopoulos is highly notable within the UK. We can easily rewrite the article to incorporate British English, the article is poor because it is written in US English. ♫ RichardWeiss talk contribs 17:04, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
MOS:RETAIN seems to cover keeping it the way it was. PackMecEng (talk) 00:17, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

"symbol of the No Platform movement" -- misleading

Article currently states: "He has become a symbol of the No Platform movement of banning controversial speakers". That makes it sound as though he is in favour of, or instrumental in, banning, whereas I understand he is strongly opposed to it. The sentence suggests the opposite. Equinox ◑ 23:04, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

Above issue has been addressed (successfull?), but temporal anchoring around "2016 election season" prompts questions: Where (U.S. and U.K.)? Who says? The source doesn't seem to support this time bracket, and the No Platform movement seems U.K.-based. Was it the U.S. presidential election that launched the anti-Milo sentiment? Was it his support of Trump that made him so controversial (on both sides of the Atlantic)? If so, U.S. needs to be mentioned.--Artaxerxes 17:11, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

Does pedophilia controversy deserve its own section?

I think it does. If you look at the other sections--"charity work," "books," "dangerous faggot tour--it refers to events that are less conseuqential and less well-covered in RS than the pedophilia thing. Please share your point of view. Steeletrap (talk) 17:21, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

Too soon to tell. If he doubles down and makes more of it then maybe. 2602:306:CE95:57B0:B16B:F04E:351D:3553 (talk) 05:05, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

Which photo from these two?

  • 2013
    2013
  • 2014
    2014

I was more fond of the newer image, a matter of recentism for me. That said, choice and thoughts both appreciated. Bluesphere 08:10, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

The 2014 image is horrid and barely looks like him. Minus the curly hair, the 2013 photo reflects his "look" today. The 2014 photo makes him look bloated, unkempt, and on drugs. Definitely not the kind of quality for an image in the infobox, the place readers look first. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 11:14, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
I support the 2014 image. My choice for this is not only recentism of the photo and it being closer to his current appearance, but the fact that it is from his most famous time (Presidents of the United States have their presidential photographs in the infobox). Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 14:24, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
Actually, no. The 2014 image doesn't look more like him now. I've seen him on several occasions recently via TV and online video (as well as photos), and he doesn't look like the 2014 photo at all. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 16:42, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
To be fair, he also does not look like the 2013 photo. The 2013 photo at least has the advantage its better quality. Only in death does duty end (talk) 18:50, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

"He resigned from Breitbart" should be amended ...

"He resigned from Breitbart" probably should say instead "In February 2017 he resigned from Breitbart ..." 2602:306:CE95:57B0:B16B:F04E:351D:3553 (talk) 05:04, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

 Done. HelgaStick (talk) 02:42, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

The lede needs to mention 13

The controversy is inexplicable if we simply say "Milo said teens could have sex with adults," or even "Milo said minors could have sex with adults." (Does anyone really think he would be fired if he condoned sex between 17 and 20 year olds?) We need to specify the root of the controversy: saying that boys as young as thirteen can consen to sex with audlts.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Steeletrap (talk • contribs) 06:03, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

I agree. The age difference led to the widely reported pedophilia charge which led to the demise of CPAC and his book offer which should be covered at the same time. 2602:306:CE95:57B0:B16B:F04E:351D:3553 (talk) 06:16, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
According to the transcript a user posted to this talk page (and to the video itself), Milo never said that. See:

Another man says: “The whole consent thing for me. It’s not this black and white thing that people try to paint it. Are there some 13-year-olds out there capable of giving informed consent to have sex with an adult, probably…”

Then:

The man says, “The reason these age of consent laws exist is because we have to set some kind of a barometer here, we’ve got to pick some kind of an age…” Milo: “The law is probably about right, that’s probably roughly the right age. I think it’s probably about okay, but there are certainly people who are capable of giving consent at a younger age [than that which the law defines], I certainly consider myself to be one of them, people who are sexually active younger

And finally:

Milo: “You’re misunderstanding what pedophilia means. Pedophilia is not a sexual attraction to somebody 13-years-old who is sexually mature. Pedophilia is attraction to children who have not reached puberty.

I.e. the only moment in which Milo mentions the age of 13 is when he (correctly) distinguishes pedophilia and other disorders. So, why should the lead mention something he never said? Saturnalia0 (talk) 10:04, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

Earlier he's much clearer:

Unkown man says: “If I knew someone around my age that was like had sex with a 13-year-old I would be creeped out. Honestly.”

Milo says: “What is your age”

Unknown man says: “I am almost thirty-five (35).”

Milo says: “Ok, well I am talking about 28-year-olds”.

Unknown man says: “Oh that changes everything? [Laughter]

Milo says: “I am guessing, I haven’t told this publicly … we are talking 13 – 25, 13 – 28. These things happen perfectly consensually. Often by the way it is the women who suffer.” “What normally happens in schools very often is older woman with this younger boy. And the boy is predatory in that situation. The boy is like let us see if I can f*ck the hot gym teacher or the maths teacher. And he does. The women fall in love with these young men, these athletic young boys in their prime.And end up having their long life destroyed. Their schools, whatever. I would say, that situation I am describing on Joe Rogan show I was very definitely a predator on both occasions. As offensive as some people would find that I don’t much care. That was certainly my experience.”

Unknown man says: “Milo hold on a second. Ben, you said you would be creeped out if someone cam to and said they had sex with a 13-year-old. But what if they said, you know the 13-year-old, they were the predator. He came on to me. Is it that unbelievable to have some really horny 13-year-old that just like … "

Milo says: “Seriously, is it any wonder I was sexually precocious, f*cking look at me.”

Milo asserts (from 56 minutes) that 13-year-olds are not only able to give consent, but to be sexual predators in a relationship with adults.

He asserted that he did so, as the 13-year-old. That doesn't mean he said every 13-year-old can give consent - to the contrary, he just said that a higher legal age of consent was appropriate. Note there is a distinction between knowing, as the 13-year-old all grown up, that you gave genuine consent, and thinking you know, as a child sexual abuser, that the child you want to screw is really capable of and giving genuine consent. It's the difference between knowing your own mind and knowing someone else's. (And yes, I know, we really shouldn't be arguing these issues here -- but we are anyway, and if we are, I want to make sure people give the guy a fair shake. There's been a lot of craziness around him but Wikipedia is not a riot zone. Wnt (talk) 15:04, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
I agree that the shake needs to be fair, but 'these things happen', 'often it is the women who suffer', and 'in schools very often' imply that he's talking about a class of relationships rather than just his own experiences. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.205.251.210 (talk) 15:24, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
Yes, a class of relationship between "younger boys" and grown men/women, not 13 year olds. Currently the lead is merely repeating fake news from The New York Times. Saturnalia0 (talk) 16:58, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
Milo couldn't have been talking about himself because one of his hypos related to a 13 year old boy with a woman, not a 13 year old boy with a man. Steeletrap (talk) 18:33, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
See how "13 years old" was introduced in the conversation, quoted above. I am still surprised that the media gave so much attention to this stunt by Glenn Beck, Milo has a history of denouncing underage sex scandals. In his response he already clarified what he was talking about so there is not much of a point in debating it. Even the crappy BBC article used in this article points it out. Saturnalia0 (talk) 19:47, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
This isn't about history. The New York Times is a reliable source and he was talking about more than just himself. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.103.5.2 (talk) 20:07, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
I am aware of the reliability status of the newspaper in this Encyclopedia, I did not contest it, I contested the affirmation made in this talk page and by the journalist who wrote the story for the NYT. I didn't say it was about history either, I pointed it out to show how absurd the claim is. He was talking about more than just himself of course, he does not deny it. He wasn't on the other hand "supporting pedophilia" (even if we completely ignore his response, just by the very definition of it) or "condoning sex with 13 year olds". Saturnalia0 (talk) 20:13, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
Milo has never, to my knowledge, denounced pedos outside of the context of ongoing political battles (i.e. he has accused Leftists at Salon and anti-gamergate journalists of being pedos). Steeletrap (talk) 20:16, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
Milo claimed that as a kid, he was the "predator"; therefore, he believes, other kids could be the predator; therefore, there are some women who suffer, etc. All of this supposes that a kid can want to have sex, but it doesn't mean he thinks that an adult can know a kid genuinely wants to have sex, nor did he say anything I see as excusing all the adults who break the law - even if some, you know not who, are really "victims". That may be a very fine line, but it is a genuine distinction, a distinction between condoning pedophilia (sensu latu) and merely expressing some compassion. We should be careful going forward not to cross this line inadvertently in describing his comments, and we should also probably take this in context that as a kid he might have been more or less brainwashed by an adult who wanted him to think this way about his own experience. Wnt (talk) 00:15, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
The sources have to make the choice for us. They, following the statement from Cpac, have had no problem saying 'condoning peeophilia'.77.103.5.2 (talk) 07:07, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
This is a WP BLP article. There are lots of things that sources say that we choose not to include. At the top of the list would be repeating an assertion that a victim of pedophilia condones pedophilia. --DHeyward (talk) 07:49, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
It can be OK to include that CPAC said that - at arm's length. Wikipedia isn't here to "make this go away". But if you can write it in such a way that the distinction actually is explained clearly, you can reduce the impact. I'm just urging everyone to think about these issues and keep them in mind and write in a way that is fair. Wnt (talk) 12:21, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
If Milo was 13 when he lost his virginity odds are he had begun puberty by then so I'm not sure calling him a 'victim of pedophilia' would be accurate. Particularly if he was describing himself as the predator via the "I was very definitely a predator on both occasions" comment. If a dozen 13 year old boys Graped a woman you wouldn't call her them victims of pedophilia right? Being "a predator" isn't necessarily talking about rape, but is talking about aggression/initiation/pursuer where the issue is an adult not taking adequate action to resist rather than taking improper actions to start. 64.231.171.58 (talk) 07:51, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
You've made my point. Under no circumstances would we portray the child as a pedophile or rapist in a relationship where the adult consented. It turns BLPCRIME on its head and blames the child victim when the only possible perpetrator is the adult. --DHeyward (talk) 22:50, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

I think a lot of the conflict has to do with varying definitions. Yes, under law, the adult is always the abuser or rapist, and never the minor. That is a legal determination, in a system that needs very clear, sharp boundaries. But just because that is the law, it doesn't mean that is the fact or only interpretation. Mr Yiannopoulos appears to be saying that the law is "about right", while expanding on the issue of "consent" and "predator" in a less narrow context. Whether this is a reasonable position to take is of course beyond the purview of the Encyclopedia. I will go further and say that the issue becomes even muddier because many people (not necessarily on this talk page) consider any suggestion that the legal positionis incorrect as intolerable unto itself, just as many people lump post pubescent sexual relations as "pedophila" even though it is not the same thing. I think that in this sort of social atmosphere, where many lines are blurred and legal, clinical, behavioural, and linguistic distinctions are often ignored it is the job of the Encyclopedia to provide some clarity in its own reporting. I don't think this is a matter of being for or anti Yiannopoulos, his positions, or lower age of consent, or child abuse, or whatever. It is about providing accurate information that does not mislead, regardless of the perspective of the reader. Ignatios2000 (talk) 23:59, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

You are making it too complicated. In law and sociology and psychology, the person that is in a relationship with a consenting adult is not a pedophile. Their is no ambiguity and there is no age. The adult may be questioned as to their state of mind, but the non-adult is not. Seeking a relationship with an adult is not pedophilia. The adult may face consequences for consenting but the minor does not. They are never accused of pedophilia because seeking a sexual relationship with a consenting adult is neither abnormal or criminal. Abnormality and criminality rests solely with the adult. --DHeyward (talk) 03:02, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

The necessary entailment: an adult would have to have sex with a 13 year old

The problem with advocating that it's ok for a thirteen year old to have sex with an adult, it that an adult would have to have sex with a 13 year old. An adult having sex with a 13 year old is indefensible. ForbiddenRocky (talk) 21:43, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

Comma changes meaning

"He also stated that "paedophilia is not a sexual attraction to somebody 13 years old, who is sexually mature" but rather that "paedophilia is attraction to children who have not reached puberty"." The comma after "somebody 13 years old" changes the meaning of the quote from meaning an individual who is both 13 and also sexually mature (in context, himself at that age) to mean all 13 year olds are sexually mature. I have checked the written source and that is how it is written, but given this is controversial maybe a more neutral interpretation is appropriate? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.87.199.26 (talk) 16:01, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

We don't change quotes, and I don't think a [sic] notation is going to clear that up. I agree, but I don't think it's worth doing anything about. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 21:48, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
We can remove the comma if it helps (WP:QUOTE and WP:COMMA). EvergreenFir (talk) 22:02, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
I'm not seeing where taking punctuation out of a quote is acceptable in those links, but if no-one objects, then WP:IAR and fix it. I don't object. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 22:07, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
@MjolnirPants: Wikipedia:Quotations#Formatting, second sentence of paragraph starting "Unexpected errors..." EvergreenFir (talk) 22:29, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
Ahhh, you are correct, sir. Good call. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 22:39, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

Removal

When was this added? --NeilN talk to me 02:18, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

Ten days ago: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Milo_Yiannopoulos&diff=prev&oldid=767024746 Marteau (talk) 02:31, 5 March 2017 (UTC)
NeilN, I've addressed the topic below, but I didn't search the edit history to see who added the text. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 02:31, 5 March 2017 (UTC)
If it's recently added then it needs to stay out until there's consensus to add it. If it's been there for a while (say, six months) then the removal needs consensus. --NeilN talk to me 02:35, 5 March 2017 (UTC)
NeilN, like I just stated below, "the pedophilia controversy is a recent matter and was discussed more than once above on this talk page. Where is the consensus for any of it?" Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 02:43, 5 March 2017 (UTC)
If you want to challenge that, you can remove it. Marteau is challenging one recent modification and so it needs to stay out per Arbcom editing restrictions. --NeilN talk to me 02:56, 5 March 2017 (UTC)
I wouldn't want to challenge the inclusion of that material, given the media attention that topic got and that it led to him stepping down from his job. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 03:46, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

Citation need tag added to lede

Distelfinck, you have already violated the DS sanctions before I came along today, with this edit, and you have no violated it again with this edit. Please stop edit warring and bring your concerns to the talk page. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 02:25, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

Can someone please put a cite somewhere with the necessary quote in the reference so the edit warring can stop and blocks avoided. --NeilN talk to me 02:33, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

 Done ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 03:43, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

Unsourced quote

The following is part of the lede:

In February 2017 he resigned from Breitbart after a controversy arising from a video clip in which he said that sexual relationships between 13-year-old boys and adult men and women "very often" are "perfectly consensual" and positive experiences for the boys.

That Yiannopoulos said that this is very often the case is not supported by the article's body, in fact the term "very often" doesn't even come up in the body.

I therefore propose changing this back to "some".

--Distelfinck (talk) 02:37, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

Well the term does appear in a quote in the article's body (of the source used), but not in the same context as in the lead - that is, saying that the relationships are very often perfectly consensual. The lead is already quoted above, I quote the relevant part of the article's body below. It should be adapted to reflect what the source actually says.
"And I think particularly in the gay world, and outside the Catholic Church — if that's where some of you want to go with this — I think in the gay world some of the most important, enriching and incredibly life-affirming, important shaping relationships very often between younger boys and older men," he said. "They can be hugely positive experiences."
I suggest moving the "very often" after "perfectly consensual" and restoring the original text that is in the criticism section which correctly describes what he said. I did a quick fix that might be enough. Saturnalia0 (talk) 10:45, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
Saturnalia0, I'm good with the edit you made, as well the original version. Seeing as how the lead is only using selectively quoted phrases, it would be inaccurate to suggest that we're quoting him, but rather that we're summarizing what he said, using snippets of his own turns of phrases. I have high confidence that the first version (that these relationships are "very often" "perfectly consensual") is an accurate representation of one of his points, but your versions (that they "very often" are positive experiences) is also an accurate summation of a different point. Yours has the advantage of keeping the quoted snippet in context. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 19:29, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

Split proposed - RfC

No consensus either for or against the split.Status quo shall be maintained for the time being.Winged Blades Godric 16:00, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

I propose that we spin off the section about his tour as it is notable and has received considerable media coverage. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 23:46, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

Um, no. The tour began well before Dangerous was announced. Both topics are notable separately. feminist 08:42, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose - The article has 21kB of readable prose, far less than recommended by WP:SIZESPLIT. In fact, The tour section should be trimmed of excessive detail. For example, quotes of protesters' chants, Facebook reviews of venues, about half of the UCLA section, and so on. His tour really does not have enduring encyclopedic value outside the context of his biography.- MrX 12:48, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
No, this is not a WP:SIZESPLIT. In fact the current level of detail is a strong reason for creating a separate article for the tour. The tour and many of its events have received significant news coverage over more than a year of time, much more than many concert tours deemed notable and with an article. If that isn't sufficient, I don't know what is. feminist 13:45, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
Note This IP had not made any edits prior to this comment. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 15:18, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Recent WP:OR/WP:SYNTH claim

As seen with this edit, I reverted Marteau on the following sentence: "The usage of paedophile as interchangeable with child molester is also acknowledged by academics." Marteau came to my talk about with a complaint.

Marteau had removed the sentence claiming that it is WP:OR/WP:SYNTH. That claim is incorrect. WP:OR is about there not being a source that exists for the content. It is not about content being unsourced. Sources do exist for that content. Many sources. If one were to look at the literature, they would know this. And the WP:SYNTH aspect of WP:OR is about stating something not made explicitly clear by the source (or sources).

The source states, "Oftentimes, the term 'pedophile' is used rather loosely within a general context, referring broadly to individuals who have committed sexual crimes against children and used interchangeably with 'child molester.' However, it is important to note that given current diagnostic labels, not everyone who has engaged in sexual acts involving children would meet criteria for pedophilia, nor have all individuals diagnosed with pedophilia necessarily engaged in acts of child molestation or child sexual abuse."

Therefore...the sentence that Marteau removed is correct. The academics are the authors. The source does not have to state "The usage of paedophile as interchangeable with child molester is also acknowledged by academics." The source only needs to explicitly support the content, and it does. I can easily add more sources to support the sentence in question. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 02:30, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

While we discuss this matter, you need to restore my challenged edit. As I mentioned on your talk page, you have violated the Active Arbitration Remedies which state "Consensus required: All editors must obtain consensus on the talk page of this article before reinstating any edits that have been challenged (via reversion)." The edit in question was added ten days ago, and cannot be considered firm consensus and is subject to challenge. Marteau (talk) 02:33, 5 March 2017 (UTC)
If we look at the edit you cited above, it was added by EdChem, and he states, "returning the proper scientific references on this topic." So was that content, or similar content, already in the article, and then removed, and he simply restored it? Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 02:40, 5 March 2017 (UTC)
If I am using the WikiBlame tool correctly (and I may not be, but I think I am), the phrase "child molester" did not occur in the article in any revision until EdChem added it with the edit I cited above. Marteau (talk) 02:52, 5 March 2017 (UTC)
Furthermore, the pedophilia controversy is a recent matter and was discussed more than once above on this talk page. Where is the consensus for any of it? Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 02:42, 5 March 2017 (UTC)
I don't understand your point. I am guessing by this that you are not respecting my interpretation of the sanction and it's applicability to your action. Are you saying it does not apply in this case? Because I believe it clearly does and that you are in clear violation of it. Marteau (talk) 02:57, 5 March 2017 (UTC)
... and I will be glad to address your assertion that the material is not OR or SYNTH and work on concensus after we iron out the sanction bit. Marteau (talk) 03:00, 5 March 2017 (UTC)
I don't understand your point about sanctions because you are focusing on new content that was in the article for sometime. In other words, all of the content is new and I see no consensus for any of it, except for WP:Silent consensus and that one RfC matter above. And yet you focused on removing this one part that is supported by the source. And why remove this one part by EdChem, but not the rest of what he added?
I removed what you objected to, but, per my above explanation, I fail to see why you think it counts as WP:OR or WP:SYNTH. Do explain. Why do you want to exclude text that specifically notes that academics (and not just news sources) also acknowledge the imprecise usage of the term pedophilia? Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 03:12, 5 March 2017 (UTC)
I have not removed other EdChem edits because they were sourced to articles about Yiannopoulous. The edit I object to does not cite Yiannopoulous, but instead discusses concepts about molestation and includes the phrase "child molester"... a phrase not linked to him by citation, but through what I consider synthesis by EdChem.
From reading your descriptions of what you think OR and SYNTH are as it applies to the subject at hand, I think you miss my point. I am not saying the edit is not sourced. I am not saying the edit misrepresents the source. The Wikipedia definition of WP:SYNTH is "(combining) material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources."
The edits are indeed sourced. But they do combine to "make or suggest a new statement not supported by any of the sources" namely, that the term, concept and phrase 'child molester' in any way applies to Yiannopoulos or his issues or his statement, and that it encyclopedically belongs in Yiannopoulos's Wikipedia article. No cited article uses the phrase 'child molester' with Milo's name or discussion of Milo's particular case. The only way the term 'child molester' can be included is by "combining material from multiple sources" and that is clear synthesis and that is forbidden on Wikipedia.
The sentence I challenged as SYNTH appears intended to serve as an explanation not sourced to any of Yiannopoulous's issues, and not applied to Yiannopoulos except by EdChem. I trust those academics know what they're talking about, and I do not doubt them in their field. What I am saying, though, is that applying their work to Yiannopoulos's issue and including the phrase "child molester" in any context in the Yiannopoulous article simply cannot be done without creating a linkage not present except through the original research of EdChem.
I do think I understand where you're coming from, though, although I think you do not understand my point (which may be my fault of course). From reading your objection above and your statements about what you think OR and SYNTH are as I have applied them, I don't expect I'll change your mind. I do thank you for respecting the process, though, and will of course defer to the opinions and concensus of additional editors. Marteau (talk) 03:53, 5 March 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for explaining your view. There are indeed many sources that talk about the Yiannopoulous matter in the context of child molestation, as seen here and here. I have not yet checked the sources about Yiannopoulous in the article to see if they use the term child molestation or child sexual abuse, but, given the included text, it appeared to me that they do. If they are talking about sexual abuse of minors, then child molestation or child sexual abuse are synonyms, although some cases fall under statutory rape. Either way, although I don't agree with your removal of simply noting that academics acknowledge the imprecise use of the term pedophilia, I now understand where you are coming from. You will also notice that EdChem added "which are defined in the academic literature in line with the Tanner stages." I don't think that clarifications necessarily constitute WP:OR/WP:SYNTH, but you or someone else might want to remove that piece as well. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 04:41, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

HelgaStick, regarding this, I repeat: What "per talk page" matter are you referring to? You have not made a case for restoration. I also see that you added this. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 11:54, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

I gather that you were stating that you agree with my argument, but, as you can see above, Marteau also made an argument. And per Marteau and NeilN above, the piece should have consensus before restoration. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 11:57, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

Sorry for the late reply. And yes, I was agreeing with your argument; I thought I saw more agreement on the talk page but I think I may have been confusing different sections with each other. There seems to be a lot of overlap here. HelgaStick (talk) 22:01, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

Bias

This article is bias. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=osFtCcpFrXI — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wittgenstein123 (talk • contribs) 01:48, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

March 2017: One of 11 nominated as rector to Glasgow University

Whoever wins this will replace Edward Snowden. A quite prestigious honor. Should be mentioned somewhere in article. Here is a neutral link: http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/milo-yiannopolous-glasgow-university-rector-nomination-protests-a7616681.html. Myatrrcc (talk) 05:54, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

Do not understand family background

I do not understand his family background. Who are his parents? And isn't his real last name Irish? How did he end up with the polished English accent if he grew up in rural Kent?Myatrrcc (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 05:57, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

"his alleged abusers" biased?

I suggest "his alleged abusers" be changed to "any abusers". In this way Wikipedia isn't using its weight to suggest that there is doubt any abuse went on, to stating what we do know for sure, that he declines to out anyone. 2602:306:CE95:57B0:1909:3239:BB35:B94F (talk) 08:24, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

Couple of things worth noting: In the body of the article the language is just "his abusers", only in the lead "alleged" is used. I skimmed through the sources used for this sentence (The Guardian and Heat Street) and they say nothing about him not identifying the abusers. Can anyone confirm this is even a thing? About the "alleged" wording - I'm not familiar with the episode in question, but has anyone been convicted? Has a police report been filled? If not, I'm not sure what the policy is on the wording here. If an abuse victim denounces it but there is no conviction/proofs, what wording should be used? Saturnalia0 (talk) 09:58, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
I say just take the word "alleged" out. It looks like it's trying to imply that Milo's just making it all up, which we have no real reason to suspect. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 14:16, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
Was anyone ever arrested or convicted for abusing the subject? If not I'd think that we have to use a bit of caution here when discussing and avoid describing the alleged abuse as a fact. ValarianB (talk) 16:02, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
The term "alleged" would be appropriate if someone could be put at risk by Yiannopoulos's claim he was abused. But Yiannopoulos has not pointed blame at any individual or group of individuals. Consequently no one is threatened by his claim. This means the term "alleged" has been used in the article merely to raise doubt over his claim. Is there a reliable source indicating the claim is not or may not be true? Unless there is, then the Wikipedia article has introduced an uncited bias, and the term "alleged" should be removed. --Epipelagic (talk) 17:27, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
The term alleged is appropriate insofar as the allegations are totally uncorroborated--we just have Yiannopoulous's word, and he has a huge incentive to lie--and people are speculating about the identity of his alleged abusers. Steeletrap (talk) 17:47, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
BLP should apply to anyone, anywhere, even unnamed people, you can't print that someone committed a crime based solely on another person's say-so. The word "alleged" does not make a judgement for or against, nor does it connote bias or negativity, it simply means at this time unproven. ValarianB (talk) 17:57, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
BLP does not apply unless you can demonstrate the unnamed persons are living or recently deceased. I have removed "alleged." James J. Lambden (talk) 18:23, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
  • I'm not disputing the claim that BLP is a consideration, nor that "alleged" is -in fact if not in practice- a neutral word. But "alleged" is also a weasel word, and while I wouldn't be the least bit shocked to learn that Milo made it all up, we have no evidence that he did and it's a non-neutral POV to imply that he is. As far as BLP goes, James hit it on the head: with no knowledge of whom this person is, we can't assume they're either still alive or passed away only recently. They might have died a decade or more ago, we just can't know. It's up to the editors asserting that BLP-level sourcing is required to demonstrate this, and that's just impossible right now. So when you take the actual circumstances of this usage into account, the only concern that's not addressed is the weasel word issue. Once again, I'd like to remind everyone considering calling me a fan or a right-wing ideologue than I'm proudly liberal and have only ever read anything written by Milo when it was being discussed as a source, here. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 18:39, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
    I think one should err on the side of caution and not make presumptions on possibly living or not, and James' assertion is rather ridiculous rather than nail-on-head. But we'll see if other editors have further input. ValarianB (talk) 20:07, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
We should not present uncorroborated allegations as established fact, particularly because Milo could name names at any moment. So yes, there is a potential BLP issue here, and a serious one: what is worse than being accused of child molestation? Steeletrap (talk) 17:45, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
This is getting as silly as Yiannopoulos. Yiannopoulos has NOT named names. He has merely made a personal statement concerning his own childhood. It is not Wikipedia's place, unsupported by reliable sources, to raise skepticism over a personal statement. What Yiannopoulos has said is NOT threatening anyone, and is not a BLP issue. IF Yiannopoulos names names, then the position becomes very different and your point becomes valid. --Epipelagic (talk) 21:27, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
WP:V also applies. We should not present uncorroborated allegations as established fact. Steeletrap (talk) 00:15, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
Stating that Yiannopoulos said he had been abused as a child is neither uncorroborated nor an allegation. It was verified by this reliable source, which simply says that Yiannopoulos "claimed that he himself had been a victim of child abuse". It's irrelevant whether or not he had been actually abused. All that is claimed is that that is what he said. However, on checking the article I was concerned to see that you youself recently entered an "uncorroborated allegation as established fact". You stated that as a child he was abused "by gay adult men". That is not in the cited sources. Please explain this. --Epipelagic (talk) 01:45, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
@Steeletrap: You've violated the 1RR restriction on this article. Your edit to the lede, for which you've failed to gain support, will be reverted. Both men and women can be "adults" James J. Lambden (talk) 03:56, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
The text is very clear: the abusers are being referenced in the context of Milo's statement. The text doesn't assert that he was actually abused, or that his abusers are real. There's no no benefit to using "alleged" and there's a clear drawback. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 04:08, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

@Steeletrap: You have resumed trying to edit war your original research back into the article. Pehaps, despite the ping above, you are unware that further discussion has taken place here. Instead of continuing to edit war, please respond to the request above and explain why you are trying to add "uncorroborated allegations as established fact". --Epipelagic (talk) 17:48, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

Biased source on funding accusations

There is a paragraph on the "relationship with the alt-right" section which cites The Daily Beast as a source. The newspaper is known for plagiarism and false accusations. Besides being an unreliable source, according to WP:POV, i believe the statement should be removed, at least until a neutral source is found; or that a line is added to discuss how the information can be dubious at best.

YuriNikolai (talk) 13:37, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

@YuriNikolai: You state that The Daily Beast is known for plagiarism and false accusations. Would you care to elaborate, perhaps including some links to articles reporting on this? PeterTheFourth (talk) 14:13, 25 March 2017 (UTC)
@PeterTheFourth: you can see sources for these claims on the wikipedia article itself, i linked it above. The plagiarism was confirmed by members from the newspaper itself, who then fired the responsible guy, by the way. YuriNikolai (talk) 14:16, 25 March 2017 (UTC)
@YuriNikolai: Wikipedia articles should not be used to back up claims in other Wikipedia articles. Do you have any links to articles that report on what you call The Daily Beast's reputation for plagiarism and false accusations? PeterTheFourth (talk) 14:18, 25 March 2017 (UTC)
@PeterTheFourth: i did not claim the Wikipedia article was the source itself. On the article, you can see the references it cites when reporting said controversies. I didn't publish the links here to keep the page visually clean. YuriNikolai (talk) 14:35, 25 March 2017 (UTC)
@YuriNikolai: I cannot find any sources used on that page which establish The Daily Beast as being known for plagiarism or false accusations. PeterTheFourth (talk) 14:38, 25 March 2017 (UTC)
@PeterTheFourth: Try looking on the "Plagiarism" and "False accusations of Trump support" sections. YuriNikolai (talk) 15:24, 25 March 2017 (UTC)
@YuriNikolai: I cannot find any sources used in those sections which establish The Daily Beast as being known for plagiarism or false accusations. PeterTheFourth (talk) 04:01, 26 March 2017 (UTC)
The Wikipedia article details some of the concerns raised but doesn't suggest that the entire publication suffers those issues as much as they were notable for being brought to public attention and dealt with. There remains little evidence that they are less than reputable overall. 2602:306:CE95:57B0:1909:3239:BB35:B94F (talk) 00:23, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

Moving the pedophilia controversy material out of the Controversies section

As seen here and here, I reverted Steeletrap on breaking the pedophilia controversy material out of the Controversies section. I did this because there is no logical reason whatsoever to have two controversy sections, where one is a controversy section that is specifically about the pedophilia stuff and the other is about all of his other controversies. Not only is it separating one controversy from the others, it's moving content ahead of other content and disrupting chronological order. This is sloppy writing. The pedophilia section is not robbed of having a section of its own by being a subsection of the Controversies section. As seen here, Steeletrap argued, "This is the most covered single event of his career; it deserves a section, not a sub-section. It's more notable than the other sections (charity work, perosnal life, etc)." But it's clear to me that the only reason he wants this section split from the Controversies section is so that it shows up in the table of contents. And that is why I stated, "If having the heading show up in the table of contents is the goal, then alter Template:TOC limit." Even though I stated this, I don't see a need for the material to show up in the table of contents. Anyone with a lick of common sense is going to look to the Controversies section for information about the pedophilia controversy. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 16:23, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

Agree with pedophilia controversy being a subsection within the controversies section. Logical and better writing should prevail. 2602:306:CE95:57B0:1909:3239:BB35:B94F (talk) 00:16, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
I can see that rationale being used to move the pedophilia controversy to the top of the controversies section, but not for giving it its own section. There is a reason the sections have vague names like "Career and politics" and "Media coverage". It is so that they may serve as a container for the data which falls under their purview. Having multiple "Controversies" sections strongly implies that the controversies are all the matter, or that they matter the most, when this is patently not true. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 00:23, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
The place for highlight is the lead, where the controversy already is at (as it should while it's a major event in the subject's chronology). In the article body its place is a subsection of the Controversies category. I would place it on chronological order instead of on top, just because I find it easier to read and as far as I can remember from the articles I've read, it's the usual thing to do, though I can understand the argument for leaving it on top. Saturnalia0 (talk) 01:50, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
Done. I suspect that Steeletrap will revert or move the pedophilia content to the top of the Controversies section, but I can't be bothered to argue over this any longer. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 18:29, 31 March 2017 (UTC)
Steeletrap, you had days to make your case here on this talk page. Others weighed in and our against your split setup. Clearly, looking above and at the article edit history, you do not care what other editors state. Nor do you care about what is best for readers. You WP:Edit war so that things are your way. Regardless, I very much doubt that your split setup will stay for as long as you want it to. This format includes an empty Controversies section. And this format has the pedophilia section as its own section after the Controversies section when it should simply be a subsection of the Controversies section. I could start a WP:RfC on your setup, and I'm sure that most editors would agree with my viewpoint. But like I stated above, I can't be bothered to argue over this any longer. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 18:50, 31 March 2017 (UTC)
Apologies Flyer. When trying to revert the rest of Steeletrap's editwarring I inadvertently messed up the already reverted section on controversies. --Epipelagic (talk) 19:09, 31 March 2017 (UTC)
One more thing: NeilN, I'm not sure if you are still watching this article, but you and other administrators might want to keep an eye on it since it seems that Steeletrap is dominating it regardless of what others state. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 19:03, 31 March 2017 (UTC)
It's on my watchlist but pinging me is always helpful if you want admin attention. Steeletrap, please refrain from reverting without discussing. I do not see any stable version of the article separating out the paedophilia controversy into a major subsection so you need to first obtain consensus to do that. --NeilN talk to me 19:31, 31 March 2017 (UTC)
I restored what appears to be a consensus layout. And the wording changes were just odd and cumbersome to read, I do not see what is gained by changing "adults" to "adult men and women", for example. ValarianB (talk) 19:04, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

Yiannopoulos

How did he get the Yiannopoulos surname if his birth surname was Hanrahan (his Greek-Irish father's father had the Hanrahan name)? Heepman1997 (talk) 09:55, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

I thought it was his paternal grandmothers maiden name but this is not in the article. Some investigation will have to be done. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 11:52, 2 April 2017 (UTC)
Correct, although the grandma never married. I have added it to the article --Distelfinck (talk) 15:58, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

Proposed merge with Dangerous (book)

The article is redirected to here with a coda that as soon as a release date is announced, the article is immediately restored.

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

I'm proposing that the book article be trimmed and merged with the bio. The book publisher has withdrawn, so it seems unlikely that this article could be expanded much beyond it's current stub status. - MrX 00:24, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

It's highly likely that the book will either get picked up by another publisher, or that he will self-publish it (which is fairly easy in this day and age) --Distelfinck (talk) 01:04, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
If that happens, and if it attains independent notability to sustain a separate article, then it can be spun off. At this point it's vaporware. -Jason A. Quest (talk) 01:58, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
Oh, some low rent publisher is bound to pick up the book but, nevertheless, it's not notable enough to have its own article yet. 199.7.157.23 (talk) 02:23, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
Merge per WP:CRYSTAL but with no prejudice for spinning out if it gets GNG later. ResultingConstant (talk) 03:59, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Hold Hold on to this decision until a concrete publisher confirms the publishing of this book with an approximate timeline — Preceding unsigned comment added by 183.83.50.165 (talk) 12:49, 5 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose the book as of right now has already received coverage far excess of what WP:GNG requires. Per WP:NTEMP, once a topic has been the subject of "significant coverage" in accordance with the general notability guideline, it does not need to have ongoing coverage. Otherwise, the article should not have been created in the first place. feminist 09:26, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose As per above. Even if the book does end up not being published it is still a notable unpublished book. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 11:15, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Support. The proposed book, which hasn't even been published, doesn't need a stand-alone article, particularly not this brief stub. It can be covered in his biography instead. --Tataral (talk) 14:38, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
  • I'd suggest holding off for at least a week or two to see what happens. At this point in time it's a bit soon to pack everything up just yet, although if this book doesn't have a new publisher by the end of March I'd suggest merging this into the main article for Yiannopoulos. This did get quite a bit of coverage, so I'm hesitant to mark it off only the day after S&S nixed the book. There is enough to maybe justify an article and it's still getting some mention in the press (although his overall comments are dominating the news right now), so I just don't want us to be too hasty. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 16:11, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Agree with Tokyogirl79 that it's still too early to tell. (Though I note that the book on Gamergate that he said he was writing in 2014 still remains unpublished.) JezGrove (talk) 23:51, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
  • I agree with Tokyogirl79 also. Keiiri (talk) 02:01, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
  • I agree with Tokyogirl79 also. 2602:306:CE95:57B0:B16B:F04E:351D:3553 (talk) 05:25, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
    • No offense, but can you try not to copy someone's else's comment word for word? Keiiri (talk) 05:35, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
      • Taking into account that the book has enough sources to stand alone as an article as is it could stay. However that might make for a bad permanent article and if his biography improves enough that this content could be woven in then that might be a solution. Having stated all that, which is rehashing what others have already pointed out, I'll also restate that it's a bit too early as these events have just occurred and some other publisher may leap at the opportunity of Milo may self-publish. In essence Tokyogirl79's statement voiced my comments perfectly so i felt nothing else needed to be added at this time. Hope that helps in any decision-making! 2602:306:CE95:57B0:B16B:F04E:351D:3553 (talk) 06:10, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Support Simon & Schuster will still own the rights to the book unless the advance has been repaid, so it's unlikely it will be picked up or self-published. Another book might be written, but that would be a different book.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.205.251.210 (talk) 15:30, 22 February 2017
I'm not sure about that. My understanding is that when a book contract is signed and an advance paid, the publisher owns the rights provided they fulfill their contractual obligation to publish the book. As long as the author delivers the book on time and is otherwise in compliance with their contractual obligation the publisher can't just refuse to publish w/o surrendering the copyright. Unless there is some specific clause, the publisher typically forfeits any paid advance in these situations. -Ad Orientem (talk) 17:35, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
  • I found this article that talks about the press statement that Yiannopoulos put out on Tuesday. The gist of the book related material is that other publishers have contacted him about the book and it's supposed to release this year as planned. I still think that it's a bit premature to merge this into the main article. If we don't hear anything truly concrete in a few weeks then redirecting would be a good idea, but only with the coda that as soon as a release date is announced, that it get restored. The thing to remember is that if a book is high profile enough a publisher may possibly pick it up after the dust settles. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 11:49, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose the book has received lots of coverage, and has its own history by itself. --Deansfa (talk) 15:14, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Support a stub-article about an unpublished book. The author is what is notable, not the book itself. The book itself never was controversial (it has no known content that could have stirred controversy, as it has never been released), it was the author that was the center of any controversey relating to the book. SecretName101 (talk) 17:17, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Support Agree with what is written above. L.R. Wormwood (talk) 13:23, 26 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Question-@Tokyogirl79:--Now that nearly a month has passed, what's your view on the issue?Requesting your opinion for a closure of this RFC!Winged Blades Godric 17:34, 30 March 2017 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Note that Milo condoned underage M-W and M-M sex?

I think it is relevant to note that Milo spoke positively of sex between gay 13-year old boys and adult men, AND straight 13-year old boys and adult women. This shows he is broadly endorsing sex between 13-year olds and adults, not just homosexual sex but heterosexual sex. It would only take a few words to mention this in the lede. The current version of the lede seems to indicate that he was only trying to rationalize his own alleged abuse (as a 13 y/o gay man), which simply isn't true, since he also endorsed Women-boy "love."

The editors who keep trying to remove this fact from the lede say it makes the sentence "clunky." But substance/neutrality must trump style. Steeletrap (talk) 15:58, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

It should be noted that the discussion about the issue of young/old love took place with the "Drunken Peasants" while Milo was himself drunk. Drunken Peasants in a show after this debacle started claimed that they didn't think Milo was promoting pedophilia and that no one who heard the show had complained about it. So there is something wrong with all this hysteria about pedophilia.49.207.60.125 (talk) 15:11, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
That being said, accurately describing his comments is something WP should strive for. Consider describing them in the most vague terms: "Yiannopoulos was recorded endorsing pedophelia," a statement which grossly mischaracterizes his comments into something more expected from NAMBLA. Being precise allows us to convey not only more accurate information to the reader, but more neutral information. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 15:27, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

Failed identification of the abusers

This sentence or some variation of it:

Throughout the controversy, Yiannopoulos was criticized for failing to identify, or report to the authorities, any of a number of men he claimed had sexually abused him or other young boys.[1]

References

  1. ^ http://observer.com/2017/02/breitbart-milo-yiannopoulos-joe-rogan-podcast-child-sex-abuse/

Seems to have come up in the lead quite often in the past, but there is no source for it in the body of the article. In the last adition, this was added as a source for the statement. But the source says "He even says he went to the police more than 20 years ago and identified his abusers, but they did nothing.", which is contradictory with what our article says (above). I'm not sure if this is a RS either, I haven't heard of this site before, maybe other editors can weight in. I undid the revision that added the statement (23h after my last revert, but I believe it's a BLP violation regarding poorly sourced content and thus is exempt from WP:1RR).

Anyway, I read all the sources placed after the statement on the article body and could not find any of them indicating this failed identification (I added a [citation needed] tag so that editors more familiar with the case can fix it, if there are in fact sources for that). Saturnalia0 (talk) 15:35, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

  • The quote you provided from the source was attributed to Corey Feldman, no Yiannapoulos.
Corey Feldman, a highly successful 1980s child actor, claimed likewise. He even says he went to the police more than 20 years ago and identified his abusers, but they did nothing. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 15:44, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Ah, that's what I get for skimming through the text. My bad. Is it a RS, though? I'll revert myself in this case and replace the tag in the article body with it. Saturnalia0 (talk) 15:48, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
No worries, it happens. The question of reliability is a big one, however. This site is not The Observer, and it's about page doesn't describe any editorial policy, though it does list editorial staff. But there's no need to revert yourself, as the sources doesn't actually support the cited sentence from the article. At least not that I saw from a quick read of it. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 16:16, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
As an aside Corey Feldman's child abuse can be sourced quite reliably, as the man himself covered it in his autobiography, which if not high literature, is very interesting to anyone who was into 80's films. Only in death does duty end (talk) 16:31, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
I don't doubt it. He's been aware there's some very serious vampire activity in this town for some time... ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 17:21, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
You're correct Saturn. He was criticized for failing to report the sexual abuse of other boys, which he says he witnessed as an adult at Hollywood sex parties. Steeletrap (talk) 19:15, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

Controversies are better presented chronologically and maybe should be in the main text

I think people trying to understand this subject are better served by being presented with information in roughly chronological order. In my view, he amped up new outlandish things to say and do when his last statements were no longer upsetting the public. A new controversy as needed. It also would likely be better to integrate all the content into a rough chronological order so those reading can see the evolution. 2602:306:CE95:57B0:7194:F45C:3885:C1A9 (talk) 01:00, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

As noted in the #Moving the pedophilia controversy material out of the Controversies section section above, of course it should be in chronological order, but one editor in particular keeps moving the pedophilia content ahead of everything else, as though readers won't find the material otherwise. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 01:23, 5 April 2017 (UTC)
  • I agree that the controversies should be in chronological order. My comments in the section above about me seeing a certain argument as being one that would support moving this section up should not be taken as an endorsement of actually moving the section up, but a criticism of those arguments as being applicable to breaking this out into its own section. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 15:30, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
To maintain the chronological order, though, one would have to deal with Steeletrap's constant edit warring; I don't have the patience for that. Nor do I feel like starting an RfC on the order. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 01:01, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
Are you fucking kidding me? @Steeletrap: are you aware that you're violating discretionary sanctions repeatedly on this article? You and I are both obviously not fans of Milo, but if you don't self-revert and either drop it or start a discussion, I will request sanctions against you myself. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 12:53, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

Defamation edit request

Please change "In February 2017 he resigned from Breitbart after a controversy arising from a video clip in which he said that sexual relationships between 13-year-old boys and adult men and women can be "perfectly consensual" and positive experiences for the boys.[9]" to "In February 2017 Milo Yiannopoulos resigned from Breirbart after a controversy arising from a video clip in which he used the vague terms "boys" and "men" to explain consensual sexual relationships, leading the general public to believe he supported pedophilia." because the original article is not true. If you listen to the entire tape provided in the source Milo never says that 13-year-olds should have sex with men, nor does he imply that minors should have sex with adults. This is technically defamation. In the video http://www.mediaite.com/online/watch-live-milo-yiannopoulos-holds-press-conference-following-disinvitation-from-cpac/ he himself clearly states that he said the consensual laws were "about right." in the tapes. A second reference would be the reference the original quote provided, which is http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/yiannopoulos-quits-breitbart-apologizes-uproar-over-year-old-comments-n723861. In the article it never once states that Milo said anything even about 13-year-olds. The words 13-year-olds is not in the article. Milo is being misquoted. Holypinkhobo (talk) 05:01, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

Not done: Need consensus for proposed changes as WP:TRUTH seems relevant here EvergreenFir (talk) 07:13, 30 April 2017 (UTC)
  • The Daily Beast article reports that Yiannopoulos said “We are talking about 13-25, 13-28, these things do happen perfectly consensually,” in a podcast. That is almost exactly what this article says.- MrX 20:27, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

You provided no link to support your claim. Just a blank quote with no actual source backing other than "The Daily Beast" which is an extremely potical biased source. In the actual reference provided by the quote in the article, there is no content saying Milo advocated for sex with 13 year olds and adults, therefore you did not prove this is not defamation, and the quote still should be changed. Holypinkhobo (talk) 19:49, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

  • I see no wall of text. The Daily Beast is not in fact a politically-biased source -- see, for example, its Wikipedia article. The quoted passage, which is taken from a well-known video, accurately reflects what was said. MarkBernstein (talk) 19:58, 3 May 2017 (UTC)
The Wikipedia article you requested me to look at reguarding the Daily Beast had a section called "controversies" where it talked about the several claims of fraud against the website. Hardly a reliable source. I have yet to see one official quote with a reference link in any reply. Only "I listened to the video, this sounds right." which is not a viable source. I have provided two quotes, one outside source I brought in and the very source crediting the line I'm asking to be changed. Provided the source applying credibility is not in valid agreement with the content provided in the Wikipedia article, the quote is guilty of defamation and leaves my claim valid. Holypinkhobo (talk) 05:21, 4 May 2017 (UTC)
A video is a perfectly acceptable source which can be verified by listening to it yourself. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 15:17, 4 May 2017 (UTC)
I did. and he said the consent ages were "about right." If word of mouth was enough evidence, then there wouldn't be a talk page, and the Milo article wouldn't be semi protected. Holypinkhobo (talk) 16:14, 4 May 2017 (UTC)
  1. X is a Y.
  2. X is not a Y.
Since I typed the second one, does that then prove that I never typed the first? No, of course not. But that's what your argument is. Milo said X. He also contradicted himself. That doesn't, in any way shape or form, boil down to "Milo never said X, some people are just haters who twisted his words!!" I'm ready for someone to close this thread, and I suggest you let it go and move on. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 16:19, 4 May 2017 (UTC)
I don't actually think I said some people are haters. I never really implied that at all. I see a misquote in a Wikipedia article, and I would like to see it fixed. The thread is not closed. If you have some constructive criticism for the refutation of my point, then please share it. You haven't said anything about how there was non existent evidence pulled from an article that did not say anything it implied. Please show me in the article where it said Milo said it was okay to have sexual relationships with 13 year olds, and I'm sure my thread will be closed. I don't believe I have any emotions involved in my claim, so there is no situation to move on from. Holypinkhobo (talk) 00:02, 5 May 2017 (UTC)
http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2017/02/cpac-milo-yiannopoulos-pedophilia.html New York magazine, slate, the independent, CNN, and many other sources cover the remarks. They are very well established. MarkBernstein (talk) 02:46, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for giving a reference. Although you listed several articles that covered the story, it's not the same as providing an actual quote that Milo said. Inside the article you provided from NY Magazine, they quoted Milo saying "In the homosexual world particularly, some of those relationships between younger boys and older men...", as you can tell that has nothing to do with 13-year-olds. Milo used the vague term "younger boys" and "older men". Also in the article they put quotes over the words "condoning pedophilia", because they are implying there is no proof Milo said "13-year-olds can have sex with men". Therefore my defamation request still stands. There is no quote directly stating he said "13-year-olds." Holypinkhobo (talk) 03:06, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

Please read Paraphrase (to understand my previous comment). When you're done with that, please read WP:OR. When you're done reading that, read this, this, this, this, this and this, and watch this and this. If you still don't understand why we won't make the change, you should probably do this. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 04:10, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

Editorializing

ValarianB reverted, and said "The previous version represents the sources cited." But the source cite does not include the word "mock" which they reinserted with this. Regardless of this, calling Yiannopoulos "mocking" in this case is a form of editorializing that should be avoided --Distelfinck (talk) 17:20, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

Grandmother never married

http://wayback.archive.org/web/20121229225835/http://yiannopoulos.net/2012/03/03/nana-petra-1933-2012/. Father was raised by a single mother. Also, why is a trivial detail about Claridge tea drinking included? Grandmother was Irish and where he got last name Hanrahan.Myatrrcc (talk) 17:33, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 2 May 2017

Milo Yiannopoulos (/jəˈnɒpᵿləs/;[1] born Milo Hanrahan; 18 October 1984; also writing under the pen name Milo Andreas Wagner[2][3]) is a British media personality associated with the political alt-light often confused with the unstable alt right.[4] and a former senior editor for Breitbart News. Describing himself as a "cultural libertarian,"[5] he is a vocal critic of feminism, Islam, social justice, political correctness, and other movements and ideologies he sees as authoritarian or of the regressive left. MJ101 (talk) 22:35, 2 May 2017 (UTC)


alt-Light? No. Not done. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 22:38, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
Islam is a religion. It is neither authoritarian nor of the regressive left. Feminism is not authoritarian. Furthermore, the left is not regressive. Wildly outside consensus. MarkBernstein (talk) 22:41, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
@MarkBernstein: The text of the request was identical to the current opening sentence except that the requesting editor changed "alt-right" to "alt-light" and added "...often confused with the unstable alt right.", an entirely OR addition. The key here are the words "...he sees..." which are in there before ascribing those things as being authoritarian or "of the regressive left". According to Milo, those things are authoritarian and of the "regressive left". I agree that according to anything resembling objective consideration that they are not. Also, I'm not entirely comfortable with us credulously using the phrase "regressive left," as it's a pejorative phrase invented by the political right that doesn't accurately describe any political position of note. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 20:24, 3 May 2017 (UTC)
I've rephrased the 'regressive left' bit. PeterTheFourth (talk) 20:16, 4 May 2017 (UTC)
I was thinking of putting scare quotes around the phrase, but your version matches the sources just as well. Good job. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 22:00, 4 May 2017 (UTC)
Always happy to help :) PeterTheFourth (talk) 12:17, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

Spelling

He's not a "practising" Catholic; he's a practicing Catholic. Noahchristianbaptist (talk) 00:16, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

That is a valid British spelling. It depends on whether you want the article in American English or British English. 2601:280:4380:36C0:4461:1536:1E5A:D0DE (talk) 21:33, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

Yiannopoulos Privilege Grants: Disbursed, not dispersed

Spelling issue: scholarships and grants are "disbursed", not "dispersed". 66.241.130.86 (talk) 20:41, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

 Done; "disbursed" is the correct word to use. SkyWarrior 20:45, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
To be fair, if too many people got it, and ended up only earning a couple bucks apiece, it could fairly be said to have been "dispersed". ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 23:20, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 9 May 2017

sexual relationships between 13-year-old boys and adult men and women

The phrase '13 year old boys' should be 'younger men'. Milo never said 13 year old boys in the text. 82.22.152.29 (talk) 19:44, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

Milo stated "younger boys". The text is accurate. ValarianB (talk) 19:52, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
In fact, Milo referenced 13 year old boys and separately agreed with the statement "...15, 14, 13 years old..." See the links provided at the end of this archived thread. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 20:25, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
Agree with User:MjolnirPants; the article's paraphrase is sound and follows abundant reliable reporting. MarkBernstein (talk) 23:59, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
Probably should take a source which directly supports the text we have included and include it as a reference. WP:V is not satisfied by links in Talk page discussions. As it is, the IP editor is correct, the text is not supported by the source we have used. Suspect that concerns will continue to be raised until the article is aligned with core policy. - Ryk72 'c.s.n.s.' 01:45, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
The Daily Beast and TheWrap (106 and 107) sources, both used to reference that fact in the body of the article, directly support the text we use. So that's already taken care of. Parabolist (talk) 02:03, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
Is there a tacit agreement that the NBC News source (9) referenced in the lead section does not directly support the text there? If so, is there consequent agreement that we should either amend our text or change the sources referenced? If sources 106 & 107 directly support the text, we are far better referencing those; and I think, given WP:BLP and WP:LEADCITE, we're better referencing this type of statement where it occurs, rather than relying on referencing in the body. W.r.t. sources 106 & 107, however, I'm having trouble finding text in those sources which directly supports the text as we have it in our article; it may have to do with the specificity of our text. Perhaps someone might identify the parts of the sources which provide support? - Ryk72 'c.s.n.s.' 02:32, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
The following textual sources directly support the specification of 13 year olds ([1], [2], [3], [4], [5] and [6]). The following video sources show Milo directly mentioning (or agreeing with the mention of) 13 year olds ([7] and [8]). If the NBC source doesn't support this statement, then simply substitute one of these. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 14:52, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

Personal sections

I count three sections marked "personal" -- Early and personal life, Personal sexuality, and Personal life. Opportunity to collapse and harmonize? --Artaxerxes 14:59, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

Agree and have acted on. Nedrutland (talk) 15:22, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

Order of Controversies section yet again, and repeated edit warring by an editor

It seems that Steeletrap waited for this section to archive and started up his edit warring again. Nothing can get done at this article and stay done as long as Steeletrap is editing it. At this point, I am so annoyed that I will be seeking action against Steeletrap. NeilN gave him a warning and yet he is still at it. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 09:02, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

And the controversies order is just one instance of Steeletrap's repeated edit warring. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 09:08, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

@Flyer22 Reborn: I think it's time to let WP:AE handle this. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 12:51, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
Handled. --NeilN talk to me 14:39, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
Damn. Good catch (and good call re: the wording of the TBAN). Thank you for saving me a trip to the soap opera convention. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 14:59, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
I restored the opening to the pre-Steeltrap version, stuff like "massive backlash" and "his career took a major blow" is hyperbolic tabloid-like writing. ValarianB (talk) 14:09, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
Thanks, NeilN and others. I am all for compromising, but Steeletrap wasn't comprising or commuinicating here on the talk page about this. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 14:01, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 8 external links on Milo Yiannopoulos. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:05, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

"Practising" Roman Catholic?

What definition is in use here? Milo's statements and publicly broadcast personal behaviour documented on this page don't exactly align with an active Roman Catholic faith. BigGoyForYou (talk) 04:24, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

As a simple biographical statement, it's perfectly fine to briefly state his position. If you have a reliable source questioning this, we can go from there, but in general, we should take a person's word for it and move on. Grayfell (talk) 05:03, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

watered-down? re:book section

In the 'Dangerous' book section at the end of the article it states "The publisher's cancellation occurred in the wake of the video and sexual-consent comments controversy ..."

I think this is misleading or at least watered-down. It was cancelled due to his alleged support of pedophilia that was widely covered. It also should make clear what video or why the video has any impact. Otherwise we leave people guessing what really happened. 2602:306:CE95:57B0:689A:78BD:2711:7567 (talk) 03:55, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

This incident is explained in greater length in the #Controversies section, which is before the book section. Grayfell (talk) 04:35, 3 June 2017 (UTC)
Yes. The problem is that not every reader will actually see that prior content so it should be able to stand on its own as accurate and not misleading. 2602:306:CE95:57B0:689A:78BD:2711:7567 (talk) 03:58, 8 June 2017 (UTC)
It's not misleading. The publisher's cancellation did, in fact, occur in the wake of the video and sexual-consent comments controversy. Any reader wishing to know more need only scroll up the page to that section. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 12:48, 8 June 2017 (UTC)
I disagree. On its own it's misleading. Readers should not have to reference another section of the article to have all the information clearly presented. I think it should be re-written a bit so it can stand on its own. Even if we are summarizing what is presented elsewhere I think it should be an accurate summary. 2602:306:CE95:57B0:34E9:6D73:3DDB:CFA5 (talk) 03:57, 9 June 2017 (UTC)
It's not on it's own. It's part of a large article. If the reader can't be bothered to read the whole thing, there's nothing we can do about it. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 14:10, 9 June 2017 (UTC)
I disagree. I think it can be written better and when I hit more time will take a try. Thank you for responding! 2602:306:CE95:57B0:74CF:31A2:A220:C401 (talk) 02:55, 11 June 2017 (UTC)
If all you're going to do is repeat information which is already stated in the article, you're going to get reverted. There is this style called "encyclopedic" that we try to go for. If you can't agree that the article should be written in a detached, neutral, formal tone, then you should not be editing it. Such an edit reeks of advocacy and bias. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 04:30, 12 June 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for assuming I'm here to push an agenda! That's productive for everyone! {the former was sarcasm btw} 2602:306:CE95:57B0:D45:13C0:E069:37A5 (talk) 21:14, 12 June 2017 (UTC)
The fact that you think your sarcasm wasn't about as subtle as a bull in a china shop is probably not something you want to advertise. That being said, I didn't assume you were here to push an agenda. I said your suggested edit looks like something someone pushing an agenda might make. Whether you are suggesting it in good faith is something I've taken as a given, since it is actually a policy here to give the benefit of the doubt. But in the end, it doesn't matter whether you are suggesting it in good faith or not, as the appearance of the article is the reality of the article. We cannot make changes that appear to be pushing an agenda, even if they were suggested in good faith. And for the record, I utterly despise Milo; I'm not his defender. I'm only here to "defend" this article. I take great pleasure in his failings and controversies being laid bare in this article for the world to see. However, my commitment to maintaining the quality and neutrality of this article trumps that pleasure at every turn, so I oppose edits such as these. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 23:33, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 19 May 2017

In the sidebar, it say's he part of the Alt-Right. Milo has time and time again stated that he hates the Alt-Right, just delete it. 47.55.236.44 (talk) 23:41, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

Not done. There is a reliable source backing up the statement that Milo is associated with the alt-right, which I would argue is true, whether or not he likes it or not. A discussion would need to be held if you wish to remove this, as I can guarantee it will cause some controversy if you remove it unilaterally. SkyWarrior 23:49, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

What is the "reliable" source that he is alt-right? This is ridiculous, the man is technically Jewish dates black men and alt-right doesn't mix with Jews and blacks --VanillaDazzle (talk) 00:36, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

Yes, and no true Scotsman puts sugar on his porridge. "Reliable sources" is explained at WP:RS. Grayfell (talk) 00:59, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

I want an explanation of what reliable source is being used to call a homosexual Jewish man "Alt-right." Not some link with vague information on it. All of your stuff says you guys want to put out reliable information, but you guys don't put out reliable information. I'm asking for a reason here. --VanillaDazzle (talk) 03:48, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

What you're looking for is the reference list at the end of the article. Multiple sources there describe as being a member, or even the face, of the Alt-right in the headline. You don't even need to click through, although if you did most of them do it in the text as well. It'd almost probably be harder to find ones that don't. Parabolist (talk) 04:27, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

This article is not neutral

This article contains false information. Most notably, Milo is not associated with the "Alt-right." It's important to note that they originally intended alt right to be a right wing movement for youth on the right, different from the standard GOP, but alt-right got used by a white supremacist group. Now the right winged non-racial movement is not considered alt-right. Anyhow, the reference to Milo as alt-right should better reflect the fact that he is not racist.

Also, Milo is only opposed to THIRD WAVE feminism, not all feminism. Where you state "In February 2017 he resigned from Breitbart after a controversy arising from a video clip in which he said that sexual relationships between 13-year-old boys and adult men and women can be 'perfectly consensual,'" you intentionally misquote the age. He was 17 and that was above the age of consent. He was also talking about himself being the boy. The adult was in his 20s. — Preceding unsigned comment added by VanillaDazzle (talk • contribs) 04:49, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

  1. Don't accuse other editors of "intentionally" misrepresenting sources unless you can back that up with evidence.
  2. I don't see a single source (reliable or otherwise) in your entire diatribe, and we're not going to change the article based on the insistence of some random person on the internet. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 12:44, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 4 July 2017

Please change the text "sent down" with "sent down". ---- 213.205.251.38 (talk) 09:49, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

no Unnecessary "Rustication" would imply temporary expulsion, I don`t think thats the case here. regards, DRAGON BOOSTER ★ 10:15, 4 July 2017 (UTC)
Not done: per Dragon Booster. jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk) 16:39, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

Extremely Offensive Language

Why in the world does the article use the word f*ggot half a dozen times? That's a horrible word to use in describing a gay person. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.239.236.37 (talk) 03:41, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

"Faggot" is only used when referring to his Dangerous Faggot Tour; we can't call it something else, as doing so would violate WP:CENSOR. SkyWarrior 03:45, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 3 August 2017

Stating that Milo is associated with the Alt-Right is utterly false and slanderous. He has stated countless times that he has nothing to do with them, and the alt-right has stated themselves that Milo is one of their biggest enemies. Milo constantly denounces the alt-right, and the ideals for which they stand. I hope to see this false information duly corrected, because I like Wikipedia and want to continue to believe that this site has at least a shred of credibility and integrity. Thanks for understanding. 2600:6C58:7F80:34A:8CA1:9E60:ECCF:92C4 (talk) 05:40, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

Red XN No consensus for the change, there is open discussion above, feel free to join it. Also please read WP:PER, your request should probably be more specific Saturnalia0 (talk) 05:47, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

Stating that Milo is associated with the Alt-Right is utterly false and slanderous.[citation needed] ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 13:42, 3 August 2017 (UTC)


Semi-protected edit request on 4 August 2017

The following sentence is irrelevant, misleading information as the book referenced was/is not available for sale in the country referenced:

"In spite of this, the book has only sold 152 copies in the UK. [201][202][203]"

Please remove the sentence completely. 82.32.103.16 (talk) 15:49, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

the book referenced was/is not available for sale in the country referenced [citation needed] Saturnalia0 (talk) 15:53, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

I don't have the slightest clue how to cite a negative, a cursory google search will reveal that even today the book is (almost) exclusively available from Importers. The language used as it stands is biased and misleading and should be removed.82.32.103.16 (talk) 17:14, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

The thing about "almost" is that it only counts with horseshoes and hand grenades. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 18:49, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

British newspapers covered the poor sales of this self-published book. Interestingly, though the IP poster thinks that the poor sales are irrelevant, they don't complain of an earlier sentence that boasts of more encouraging sales (in an obscure Amazon category). The book is hard to find in the UK because, as The Guardian observes in the cited article, the subject is scarcely known in the UK, the subject matter is of limited interest to British readers, and (as the IP poster observes) the subject has not been able to secure significant distribution of his book in his native land. MarkBernstein (talk) 19:11, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. This is based on what has been said already. If I'm wrong, please override my decision. jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk) 21:19, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

This does not satisfy the notability guidelines

Please place a notability tag on this article, I can not find one single article or document that warrant's this person inclusion in Wikipedia, this is ego stroking at it's worst, why not include my next door neighbour, or his next door neighbour. Think seriously about what value including this strange person will contribute to society, unless of course Wikipedia does want to include every human being in the planet.

don't forget to sign your posts with four tildes when you leave comments on talk pages. Also, Wikipedia has a page here, which will help you understand the requirements for inclusion in the encyclopedia based on notability. Edaham (talk) 01:00, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

"The barometer of notability is whether people independent of the topic itself (or of its manufacturer, creator, author, inventor, or vendor) have actually considered the topic notable enough that they have written and published non-trivial works of their own that focus upon it—without incentive, promotion, or other influence by people connected to the topic matter."

Could someone set out the thinking that makes this character notable in Wikipedia? Reading the guidelines at page here I do not see it. Is this not a failure with a chip on his shoulder who now promotes ignorance and incites hatred against universities? The universities where he failed spectacularly are good ones, Cambridge and Manchester, but he has done nothing notable. His article is far longer than many significant people who are not Zeroes. If the subject is deemed notable does it require such a lengthy treatment? EDLIS Café 19:51, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

He's notable for promoting ignorance and inciting hatred against universities, to borrow your own words. Please actually read the comment above, sign your posts (~~~~) and read the link Edaham gave you. There is no real question of Milo's notability except in your opinion. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 16:28, 18 August 2017 (UTC)
You would do better to add additional commentary in a new comment, in case your edit isn't the most recent one when the others involved in the discussion check their watchlists. To answer your question, article length is generally held to be determined by the amount of significant coverage the subject has received in reliable sources. Since there are no sourcing problems here, pointing out how long this article is really underscores your assertion that Milo is not a notable individual. You can read WP:BIO for more information on our notability guidelines as they apply to individuals. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 20:17, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

Alt-Lite association

Recently, there has been an increasing distinction drawn between "alt-lite" and "alt-right" (closely related concepts, but with the former defined by civic nationalism, the latter by white nationalism). The Anti-Defamation League now uses this distinction (https://www.adl.org/education/resources/backgrounders/from-alt-right-to-alt-lite-naming-the-hate), and includes Milo, as do various media outlets - I will not list them here, but greater detail can be found on the alt-lite article.

I think a mention of Milo's categorization as "alt-lite" by the ADL (and others) should be mentioned in the section "Alt-Right". I think this also goes a long way to clarify things DoctorPaveleer (talk) 21:39, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

I'm okay with that. Got a proposed sentence? ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 21:50, 9 August 2017 (UTC)
Perhaps something like this? "More recently, Yiannopoulos has been identified with the alt-lite, a term used to distinguish individuals sometimes associated with the alt-right from openly white nationalist and anti-semitic factions." DoctorPaveleer (talk) 22:09, 9 August 2017 (UTC)
Well, with only one source, we should definitely use attribution. How about:
The Anti-Defamation League has more recently identified Yiannopoulos as part of the alt-lite, a term used to distinguish individuals sometimes associated with the alt-right from openly white nationalism and anti-semitism.
? ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 22:13, 9 August 2017 (UTC)
Sure, ideally I will try to find more sources, but for now looks like it would work DoctorPaveleer (talk) 22:25, 9 August 2017 (UTC)
  • I would think that it needs a qualifier to explain what the right/lite have in common, as that is a huge chunk of the point being made at the ADL page cited. The passages "The alt lite embraces misogyny and xenophobia...", "Many within the alt lite sphere are virulently anti-Muslim..." in particular. The way it reads now, it characterizes the alt lite as a better version of the alt right, much the same way as lite beer is marketed as being better for you than regular beer, when it reality it is just slightly less worse. ValarianB (talk) 14:03, 10 August 2017 (UTC)
I understand what you're saying, but you're basing it on a value judgement of the alt-right. We'd do best to present the facts and leave the value judgements (as obvious as they may be) to the reader. The addition currently states "associated with the alt right, but not white nationalist or antisemitic," which is an accurate description. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 15:12, 10 August 2017 (UTC)
I agree with this. There is no need to go overboard. I think the article as a whole covers the accusations of misogyny, xenophobia, etc quite well; the reference to the alt-lite is itself a "qualification". (Although, while I am here, I would like to point out that there is a grammar error in the newly added sentence.) DoctorPaveleer (talk) 17:09, 10 August 2017 (UTC)
There was more than one. What nincompoop wrote that sentence? ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 18:14, 10 August 2017 (UTC)
I'm pretty sure I based what I said on the contents of the article, but, ok.... ValarianB (talk) 19:19, 10 August 2017 (UTC)
You described the alt-lite as being "...marketed as being better for you... when in reality is is just slightly less worse." That's a value judgement. It's one I agree with, and which most RSes agree with (including this one), but still. The description given allows for the inclusion of anti-islamism, misogyny and xenophobia. It does imply that the alt-lite is better than the alt-right because it excludes white nationalism and antisemitism. Sure, it's only 0.01% less horrible than the alt-right, but a 0.01% increase is still an increase. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 21:04, 10 August 2017 (UTC)
I believe the point of the article there is to note that the difference between the two is so small as to be inconsequential. ValarianB (talk) 11:48, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
It's a minor distinction and probably not worth dealing with. At the end of the day we are not here to fine-tune the rankings of how far-right someone is, just noting that association is enough. Artw (talk) 16:35, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
The distinction is major enough for not only the ADL to distinguish but Wikipedia to have two separate articles. We are not here to fine-tune how "far-right" someone is but we must give due weight to sources. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 16:33, 18 August 2017 (UTC)
I am glad to see sources adopting this distinction. I do not think whether one supports white nationalism is minor or insignificant.
I think the current lede is reasonably accurate in this regard as is the section Milo_Yiannopoulos#Political_views. I don't think "We Hunted the Mammoth" is reliable or necessary for the statements sourced to it. Would anyone object if I removed it? James J. Lambden (talk) 18:14, 18 August 2017 (UTC)
I've thoroughly enjoyed every blog post I've ever read on that site. Note that I didn't say "article" or "news story". Have at it, hoss. If you don't, I will. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 18:40, 18 August 2017 (UTC)
Done. James J. Lambden (talk) 16:33, 20 August 2017 (UTC)
Would also accept "anime nazi". Artw (talk)
That made me laugh out loud, because Milo does kind of resemble an Anime character... ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 16:57, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

Islam is seen as leftist?

It would really be good to have that citation, if the fellow actually has stated that he views Islam as leftist. --Haruo (talk) 13:18, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

He is not alt right

The only relationship Milo has with the alt right is that they hate each other. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.231.200.122 (talk) 11:02, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

WP:RS say otherwise. ValarianB (talk) 14:24, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
Let's go with the RS
-- ForbiddenRocky (talk) 06:19, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

There is an entire section in Milo's book (starting from page 39) where he repeatedly denounces the alt-right and refutes numerous articles written about him that associate him with the alt-right (including some publications which ForbiddenRocky has linked to). The Daily Stormer, which the "Alt-Right" Wikipedia page draws numerous references from to define the movement, wrote an article specifically denouncing Milo, called for a "Holy Crusade" against him, and referred to him as "the single greatest threat this movement has had at this time", "our archnemesis", and a "kike". In multiple instances in Wikipedia's article on the Alt-right, the movement is described as being antisemetic. This all despite the fact that Milo himself is Jewish. I would argue that it is improper to characterize a Jewish person as being involved with a movement that is clearly antisemetic, especially when this person has repeatedly denounced and distanced himself from this movement.

The linked BBC article describes the alt-right as antisemetic and acknowledges that Milo has distanced himself from the movement without dispute. The Haaretz article is clearly an opinionated hit piece on Milo and for the sake of an unbiased encyclopedia article, should not be used as evidence that he is part of an antisemetic group. Finally, the Vanity Fair article merely uses the adjective "alt-right" to describe Milo in passing and does not provide any reasons for associating him with this group. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.2.243.123 (talk • contribs)

If he's written a book which has been published, then that's a reliable source from which to quote in context and with due weight. It is not against policy, but you should use a high level of discretion when judging whether or not to quote from a primary source in a BLP. There's lots of sources tying him into the alt right. There's not as many distancing him from it. A sentence such as, "In his book <title> Milo denounces...etc". If it is included verbatim and cited, would probably be allowed in. Entire paragraphs or multiple references detracting from the currently cited sources, using a self-serving autobiography by the subject of the article, would probably not be acceptable due to wp:due. For people who don't own a copy of his book, you'll need to make your quote verifiable and properly cited if you are using a hard copy. Note that such material would be included in addition to, not to replace the existing text, which is also verifiable and well sourced. The fact that they conflict can be mentioned in the article, but avoid language such as "although", "despite" and "in spite of" when including the text you want to suggest as this can give the article an unwarranted POV tone. All of the links in this article relate to what you want to include and you should familiarize yourself with them so as not to find yourself in an argument where other editors keep quoting policy at you. Please sign your talk page posts with four tildes every time you make a reply. Many thanks. Edaham (talk) 04:22, 29 July 2017 (UTC)
     Exactly. Read the book, Milo himself refutes all the points made that call him "The face of the Alt-Right." JNozza (talk) 04:33, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

I have updated the abstract to show that some journalists and commentators have referred to him as alt-right, rather than direct association himself. Scbritton (talk) 02:07, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

Peadophila acusation

The section regarding his endorsement of pedophilia is not balanced. When attendees at CPAC were polled none believed that Milo endorsed pedophilia. The people where he did the interview in which he made the comments also didn't believe he endorsed pedophilia and no one in their audience complained about it at the time. So you either didn't get all the facts or you want to paint him a certain way. You also didn't mention that in no way did Milo lose his popularity and his fan base is a strong as ever if not stronger. In other words, it was not a career-ending issue he is still alive and kicking. 49.207.61.24 (talk) 04:10, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

[citation needed] ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 04:40, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
Personally, I concur with this statement. Scbritton (talk) 17:20, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

Personal sexual history based on single primary source

Regarding this revert by Emir of Wikipedia: Yes I know he made these claims himself. That's the reason I removed them. Why is this being included based entirely on unreliable primary sources? Why is his boasts about losing his virginity, or use of over-the-top anti-PC language, encyclopedically significant? We would need more than a single article written by Yiannopoulos himself in order to justify including this. As I've said many times already, his willingness to write about himself at length doesn't mean that questionable details of his personal life are automatically worth inclusion. This kind of intentionally controversial, self-aggrandizing gossip is not typically encyclopedic without reliable sources. If you do not agree that it's intentionally controversial and self-aggrandizing, all the more reason to use secondary sources. Grayfell (talk) 19:53, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

There's no need to include every claim a subject has made in their article. I support trimming it down. PeterTheFourth (talk) 19:57, 24 September 2017 (UTC)
Are you twp saying we should not include such claims because they are not notable or encyclopedic, or on the fact that it is a primary source used? --Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 20:11, 24 September 2017 (UTC)
I'm not sure what you're asking. These claims are not notable or encyclopedic unless they are supported by reliable, independent sources. Grayfell (talk) 20:20, 24 September 2017 (UTC)
I'm curious as to whether we even have any other BLP articles that mention how the subject lost their virginity. Bonus points if it's not a porn star. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 21:07, 24 September 2017 (UTC)
That's not difficult. Shane Diesel, and probably others. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:30a:2c4a:1cb0:5932:5517:df7a:1f41 (talk) 01:14, 25 September 2017‎
Shane Diesel for those following along at home. Bonus points if it's not a porn star. I wondered that too. As a sex worker, Diesel's loss of virginity is still kind of lascivious and trivial, but it's supported by a reliable independent source and is a lot more relevant than this. Yiannopoulos is a former "tech editor" turned far-right polemicist. I have my theories about why he thinks his fans would care about his sexual history, but why Wikipedia should care remains a mystery. Grayfell (talk) 05:36, 25 September 2017 (UTC)
To be fair, I'm totally hetero and even I kinda wanna hear that story. But yeah, no use to an encyclopedia. Good on the IP for finding one though, even if there will be no bonus points. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 05:51, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 1 October 2017

Milo married his partner John on Saturday, September 29, 2017 in Hawaii. http://pagesix.com/2017/10/01/milo-yiannopoulos-marries-mystery-man-in-hawaii/ http://www.nydailynews.com/entertainment/gossip/milo-yiannopolous-married-hawaii-article-1.3534641 Grammarmom (talk) 23:01, 1 October 2017 (UTC) Grammarmom (talk) 23:01, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

The only other coverage of this I found is the Daily Mail. Do we have non-tabloid/non-gossip verification? Grayfell (talk) 00:25, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
Same... Have been rooting through the BBC, but nothing yet. I assume if it is verifiable it will make the rounds eventually. We aren't in any rush, let's wait a week or so and see what other sources crop up. Edaham (talk) 00:34, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

Yes, its confirmed. It's on his facebook and instagram. DakotaJokoty (talk) 00:37, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

That's a step in the right direction, but still not really reliable. I wouldn't object if somebody wanted to add a sentence about this, but without any details at all and without any reliable sources for those details, there's not much to add and it seems premature. Grayfell (talk) 00:50, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
This is going to end up covered in some gossip rag soon enough. I'd say we could source Milo's FB to "bolster" a cite to the gossip rag and do it then. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 01:06, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
Does the New York Daily News article, linked in the original post, cover it? - Ryk72 'c.s.n.s.' 01:58, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
 pretty much I think. I'm ok with a sentence being added. Edaham (talk) 02:01, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

Leaked Breitbart emails

Buzzfeed who broke the story are a better source. [9] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Only in death (talk • contribs)
Sort of. They're the WP:PRIMARY source, so we should mention them and cite them at least once in order to link to them - but for a story like this, it's best to use multiple sources for a variety of reasons. First, it establishes that the story is significant (if many high-profile mainstream articles are covering it, it's WP:DUE weight to put it in the article.) Second, it gives us a better sense of what aspects of it are important - if many WP:SECONDARY sources reference one particular part of that article, we know that that part in particular is important and worth covering here. Anyway, here's some secondary sources on this:
  • Business Insider. Emphasis is on Nazism.
  • New York Daily News. Emphasis is also on Nazism.
  • The Week Mentions the Nazi passwords in passing, emphasis is on coordination between white nationalists and the alt right via Milo and Bannon.
  • The Times. Emphasis is on Nazism.
  • Daily Dot. Emphasis is on white nationalism, white supremacism, contacts with Daily Stormer people, contacts from "undercover" people in the media, etc.
  • AV Club. Emphasis is on white supremacists and on his surprising list of sources. (Mentions Sunderland, Lyons, and Auerbach.)
  • Telegraph. Emphasis is on white supremacism and Nazism.
  • Vox. Emphasis is on white nationalism / racism and on "helping hands" he got from people in the media who claimed to be impartial. (Mentions Sunderland, Lyons, and Auerbach.)
  • Salon. Emphasis is on journalists who sent him tips after claiming to be neutral. (Mentions Saucier and Auerbach.)
  • NYmag. Emphasis is on the support he got from the Mercers.
  • New Statesman. Emphasis is on Nazism, the Mercers, and support from people in the media. (Mentions Sunderland and Auerbach.)
  • (Some coverage also focuses on the parts that deal with Bannon, like this and this - not surprising given that Bannon is a higher-profile figure. Those are less important here, but might be worth covering on Steve Bannon.)
We should ideally use sources like these (and any others that pop up in the next few days) to build the bulk of the section. Anyway, looking over the sources, the primary focuses is the Nazi stuff (Nazi salutes, Nazi-themed passwords, etc), the overt courting of white nationalists / white supremacists, and on the people who sent him tips. --Aquillion (talk) 16:38, 6 October 2017 (UTC)
Sorry I wasnt commenting on using buzzfeed in the article, I was just replacing a previous link which was triggering my protection filters. 'This is a better source than another ad-ridden site that is just reposting'. (also for reference, per WP:PRIMARY, all news reporting on a current event are primary sources) Only in death does duty end (talk) 17:18, 6 October 2017 (UTC)
If a newspaper or magazine obtains source materials – the Pentagon Papers, say — and then publishes a story based on them, the materials themselves are the primary source and the article is a secondary source. I believe, then, that Joseph Bernstein’s reporting in Buzzfeed is in this case a secondary source in Wikipedia's meaning of the term. Am I mistaken? MarkBernstein (talk) 17:20, 6 October 2017 (UTC)
Not entirely. It depends on closeness to the event. WP:USEPRIMARY has the clearest explanation. In almost all cases news reporting (including investigative reporting) on current events/people is considered primary. This is not one of wikipedia's odd definitions, this is standard in academia as well. If a paper publishes on historical events, its generally secondary. So in your example, a story based on analysis of the pentagon papers would be secondary. A story based on recently released emails involving people who are very much still a current event - it would be very hard to class that as historical. There are exceptions and other use cases, but USEPRIMARY covers it fairly well for news. Only in death does duty end (talk) 17:28, 6 October 2017 (UTC)
Anyway, regardless of whether they're secondary or primary, it's good for us to cite additional sources - even if they're just covering the Buzzfeed article, they establish its significance and give us some guidance in terms of what parts of it are most important. (And some of them can provide additional context, too.) While I feel Buzzfeed's reporting has improved in recent years and that we can cite them as the only source for something when absolutely necessary, many of these other sources are higher-profile or more mainstream, so citing them both establishes relevance and improves the article's sourcing overall. --Aquillion (talk) 18:56, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

Tour dates

I don't really have strong feelings about it, but it seems like listing every single date from his tour violates WP:UNDUE. Unless it got very widespread coverage, who cares? It's like if we had an article on some band and wrote about one of their tours and provided details about every single concert and city they played. It'd be sort of unencyclopedic. Volunteer Marek  21:53, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

I'd tend to agree that listing all of them is undue. Most of these received little individual coverage; devoting an entire section to each doesn't seem to serve any purpose. --Aquillion (talk) 22:08, 6 October 2017 (UTC)
It is simply false that the ten appearances covered here represent "every single date from his tour." They are a selection, by no means exhaustive. If you're going to debate this, please try to come at least within shouting distance of the truth. KalHolmann (talk) 22:20, 6 October 2017 (UTC)
Immediately cranking the indignation up to full blast isn't productive. Even if this isn't every date, Volunteer Marek's edit still seems perfectly reasonable. If this isn't every single tour date, than it's an arbitrary selection based on uneven choice of convenient sources. That's not ideal, because it falsely gives the impress that it is every tour date. Grayfell (talk) 22:52, 6 October 2017 (UTC)
Now you're engaged in mind-reading. Please explain how you know the selection is based on an uneven choice of convenient sources, rather than being carefully chosen for their individual notability. KalHolmann (talk) 23:15, 6 October 2017 (UTC)
I think a better question is "what's the purpose of this section? How does it enhance the reader's understanding of the subject? What are we trying to say here?" A paragraph or two summarizing the key points of the tour and the reactions to it seems like it would be more useful than a series of news articles saying comparatively similar things happened again and again in many places, each with its own subsection. --Aquillion (talk) 02:48, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

Sexuality

I changed the heading as the old one seemed deliberately euphemistic. We are not talking about sexuality in an abstract sense but rather gay rights. Secondly the material on the pope and his views on the sinfulness of homosexuality seem perfectly valid. to what extent are they UNDUE? Contaldo80 (talk) 14:10, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

The third paragraph in that subsection addresses Milos alleged tendency to exaggerate his homosexuality. That can only be considered a "gay-rights"issue if you make the logical leap of asserting that everything dealing with homosexuality is ultimately a gay rights issue; doing so would render the heading "gay rights' so overly broad us to make it useless. Marteau (talk)
No Maretau I'm confused - all three paragraphs have to do with homosexuality and the issue of whether being gay is sinful or bad etc - his opposition to the furthering of civil rights for people to be gay. It is not about sexuality in a broad generic sense. The material doesn't set out his views on heterosexuality or asexuality. It says "gay rights have made us dumber its time to get back in the closet".So let's try and be straightforward and honest as opposed to simple euphemism. If the third para causes an issue then we move this to the section about his personal life. Contaldo80 (talk) 08:09, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
well, I'm not confused about the issue. Material about Milo allegedly over playing his gayness simply does not belong in a "gay rights" section. Thanks for not including that material under your section rename... it looks good to me. Marteau (talk) 11:28, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
Ok - thanks. We got there in the end. :) Contaldo80 (talk) 14:35, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

Leaker of emails

So apparently this is the guy who leaked the emails...  Volunteer Marek  15:46, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

Can someone rewrite this as not to read as an obvious hit piece

If anyone with their head screwed on straight reads this, it will come off as non encyclopedic and an character assassination.

Can someone take on the huge task of totally rewriting this in an encyclopedic style? 2001:14BA:3FA:4800:F893:BF99:168B:8E33 (talk) 08:26, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia reflects reliable sources. If you have a problem with something here, explain how it's not doing that. Asking someone else to totally rewrite the article is pointlessly vague. It broadcasts your opinion, but accomplishes absolutely nothing. Is this that "virtue signalling" thing I've heard so much about? Grayfell (talk) 08:47, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

"Exaggeration" of homosexuality in personal life - discuss

I'm not sure it's encyclopedic or BLP appropriate to include one writer's opinion that Milo exaggerates his homosexuality. The accuser, James Kirchik, is a respected columnist in his field but I don't think this opinion is groundbreaking enough to be included. In identity-based accusations like these, it's best to only include only the notable ones. For example, we all know that Muhammad Ali referred to Joe Frazier as an Uncle Tom. Whether or not that was true, it was a great cause of enmity between the two and is widely documented. Apart from working in broadly the same field, Milo and Kirchik have no links, so it is just one person's accusation against another. Anarcho-authoritarian (talk) 22:05, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

Just remove it next time. The "some" is a weasel word when the reference points to a single person. Saturnalia0 (talk) 22:52, 24 October 2017 (UTC)
Disagree. Seems perfectly valid material to include. Contaldo80 (talk) 09:15, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
Then get consensus for it. As you requested further explanation in the edit summary, the reference used is a an opinion columnist on Tablet (magazine). As user Anarcho-authoritarian explained above, claims like this are usually not interesting to an encyclopedia, unless maybe if they're widespread, which is far from being the case here. As for weasel, the way it was written in our article implies such spread of the opinion, but the ref attributes it to a single person. Since this is short of being libelous and it's poorly sourced material on a BLP and there is opposition for inclusion, I believe removing it is not a violation of the 1RR that the article is under, so I'm reverting the re-inclusion (once). Saturnalia0 (talk) 12:47, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
Am I looking for consensus, or am I looking for permission from you? Your edit summary was poorly worded - so don't be surprised if I asked for clarification. That material is "not interesting to an encyclopaedia" is hardly sufficient grounds for exclusion - in which case I'd judge 90% of articles to be less than eye-popping. The weasel point - assuming this is valid - can be easily addressed with changing the wording. More serious is your suggestion of libel. Wikipedia has clear rules on libel - you need to state why these have been violated. This removal of long-standing material without consensus ("a generally accepted opinion or decision among a group of people") needs to be better justified, or it will be restored. Contaldo80 (talk) 13:19, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
This article is subject to discretionary sanctions. When material is challenged consensus needs to be sought on the talk page. Edit warring, even slow motion edit warring, will not be permitted. I take no position on the content dispute at hand, but it needs to be settled here. -Ad Orientem (talk) 18:44, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
Sure but then consensus needs to be reached about removing long standing material surely. In this case we are not talking about the inclusion of new material. We are referring to old material that no-one had previously challenged. Therefore the original material should remain until the matter is resolved - rather than individual editors unilaterally making that decision in advance. I will restore the original material and invite other editors to debate the matter.Contaldo80 (talk) 09:02, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
  • Exclude - Tabloid level stuff with insufficient sourcing (both qualitatively and quantitatively) to justify inclusion. Take your pick of the prose at WP:BLP - Biographies of living persons must be written conservatively ... Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid will suffice. The "Some accuse ..." is WP:WEASEL. If there is only this one primary, opinion source, then inclusion is WP:UNDUE, and the Quentin Crisp/Jörg Haider quote is unnecessary, inconsistent with WP:IMPARTIAL, and to select it out of the 2300 words in the source for direct quotation here is a WP:CHERRYPICK. - Ryk72 'c.s.n.s.' 19:52, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
  • Exclude - I don't have a problem with the source itself, but this isn't a good use of it. As Ryk72 says, this has weasel, gossip, and cherry-picking problems. "Gay blackface" is indeed in the source, but it's one line among many which is not, to my reading, the central point of the article. I guess it could plausibly be described as the most incendiary possible phrasing of one of several points, but that's not a good thing for an encyclopedia, is it? Regardless, going from camp to "exaggerates his homosexuality for comic effect" is grotesquely oversimplifying both the source, and the issue of camp in gay culture. Grayfell (talk) 10:14, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
Can you immediately restore the material you just took out. We are trying to get consensus about what to do and whether long-standing material should be removed. Your unilateral intervention in advance of that is not helpful. Contaldo80 (talk) 12:13, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
I understand what you are saying, but I'm not going to do that. Is this unilateral? If so, your restoration of the material was also unilateral. I see three other good-faith explanations of why they oppose the material. As for this being long-standing, it appears this content was originally added as part of an excessively lengthy quotefarm by a now-blocked sockpuppet (GringisMan per Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Liborbital) in January 4, 2017. I cannot link the dif, since it's been revdeled for copyvios from Occidental Observer. This is a strong indicator that this fell through the cracks, and should've been removed a while ago. Something doesn't have to be libelous to still be a violation of BLP. It's inclusion damages the article. If you think otherwise, you should explain your position, because I do not understand why you are defending this content as appropriate for an encyclopedia. Grayfell (talk) 19:48, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
I'm saying that this is long standing material which you removed while we are still deciding - via consensus - what to do. You should have waited. It should remain until the matter is settled. If it's a violation of BLP then set out the arguments alongside the others. I still don't see what damage it does to the article. Contaldo80 (talk) 09:29, 27 October 2017 (UTC)
  • Exclude - although there may be instances where including criticism of a gay man's affect and mannerisms is appropriate, particularly when the criticism becomes noteworthy in and of itself, this instance does not clear the bar in my opinion. Marteau (talk) 10:58, 27 October 2017 (UTC)
Volunteer Marek is the latest person to intervene on this prematurely. I don't think editors are acting in good faith. Have a debate, make a decision and then act. I feel that people are rushing this - for whatever reason. Contaldo80 (talk) 14:14, 27 October 2017 (UTC)
Probably WP:BLPRESTORE is the reason. The presence or absence of the content does not impact or prevent a discussion. - Ryk72 'c.s.n.s.' 14:23, 27 October 2017 (UTC)
Thanks. Has anyone presented a convincing argument yet that the material specifically violates BLP? The objections above seem to be that

Seems like a very subjective statement and probably shouldn't be included. In the same way it could be said that Kirchick "exaggerates" his homosexuality as part of a rouse to sell neoconservatism and Israel-first politics to his fellow homosexuals in the United States. Ultimately this is a cat fight between two open homosexuals, which is actually about their differing political views, rather than Yiannaopoulos sexual antics. Claíomh Solais (talk) 20:41, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

Exclude quote: If one is fixated on something, in case of James Kirchik, Milo Yiannopoulos' homosexuality vs his own sexuality, then you can come up with any far-fetched explanation to justify your distaste, and then be amused your thoughts are added to Wikipedia. It just boils down to a derogatory personal opinion Kirchik has of Yiannopoulos in some psychoanalytical drivel of epic Freudian proportions. But it still is just the musings of one man against a celebrity to show his disdain of him by making him insincere and pretentious in his gayness. Assertions of this sort may be used in some article in some ideological media outlet to besmirch Yiannopoulos, but doesn't legitimize at all its inclusion in a Wikipedia article. werldwayd (talk) 21:27, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

Confirmation of Mercer funding, Mercer now apparently cutting ties

https://www.theguardian.com/media/2017/nov/02/billionaire-trump-donor-robert-mercer-breitbart

Turning to notorious former Breitbart provocateur Milo Yiannopoulos, Mercer reportedly added: “I supported Milo Yiannopoulos in the hope and expectation that his expression of views contrary to the social mainstream and his spotlighting of the hypocrisy of those who would close down free speech in the name of political correctness would promote the type of open debate and freedom of thought that is being throttled on many American college campuses today.

“But in my opinion, actions of and statements by Mr Yiannopoulos have caused pain and divisiveness undermining the open and productive discourse that I had hoped to facilitate. I was mistaken to have supported him, and for several weeks have been in the process of severing all ties with him.”

Article currently mentions Brietbart but not Mercer. Artw (talk) 16:35, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

I think this definitely belongs in the article now. http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/robert-mercer-i-regret-supporting-milo-yiannopoulos-and-im-cutting-off-his-funding/article/2639401 Are015 (talk) 18:04, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 4 November 2017

I think this article is biased aginst Milo "He has described being gay as "aberrant" and "a lifestyle choice guaranteed to bring [gay people] pain and unhappiness."[75]" has no basis in fact. I do not bereave he said this. Treydaprogdude (talk) 16:44, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 17:00, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

2017 11 05 Reversions

This series of reversions seem to be related to the addition of text based on two editorial sources, which:

  • 1) Looks to be adding up sources (SYNTH)
  • 2) Have gone through some confusing reversions with non minor edits being marked as minor etc. The edit summaries also leave things a bit confused.

Strongly suggest we follow BRD for this inclusion. (We're at the "D" stage now - in case it's not clear) Edaham (talk) 12:59, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

That's not how it works and I'm taking it to ANI, clear violation of 1RR and edit warring. As for the content dispute, I don't see how it's synth, the academic refs are not being used in the same sentence as the commentary - it follows a sentence explaining a definition related to, but not explicitally from the commentary. In fact, the refs about the comments are separated precisely in that regard: but wrote that...[1][2] which are defined in literature..., the academic refs begining w the latter. There's a clear separation of what is commentary and what is academic definition and which sources are used for each, would you disagree? Saturnalia0 (talk) 13:15, 5 November 2017 (UTC)
I can't see a reason not to follow BRD here, further more, it looks like we are following it. We're here having the discussion aren't we? If the academic texts aren't being used in conjunction with the sourcing, may I ask why expounding on the academic veracity of the terminology is useful outside of a medical article? There should be some reason for it. If I say something like, John says "the ball is heavy", This is true as according to ~some text~ balls don't weigh more than 5.25 ounces, then the academic text would be useful if the article were about baseballs. Why's it useful here if not to add weight to a specific understanding of the editorial text of the authors who wrote the pieces from which the article text is sourced? There may be something I'm overlooking of course, but I think it deserves a brief explanation. bear in mind that BRD is not the same as deleting or blanking the text, it's just something to follow if there's a question as to the value of the text in the article. Edaham (talk) 13:39, 5 November 2017 (UTC)
I'm not talking about your edit when I complain about the dispute. As for the content, if you think the explanation was unnecessary why simply not remove it? It's a small part of what was removed, and mostly independent from it - in which the academic commentary could be removed and the rest could stay on its own. It seems to me that the definition of "ephebophilia" and "hebephilia" is not as clear cut as that of a ball, and it's not unusual in articles in this website for one to find something like "... scientific term, which means X<ref>" in non-scientific articles. But even if we disregard all that and conclude that the academic definition was problematic, then the problem is not OR/SYNTH, or is it? As I understand it, the problem is, then, just unnecessary text. And even if it was OR/SYNTH, what about the other 90% of the removed text? Saturnalia0 (talk) 13:49, 5 November 2017 (UTC)
I could have done that yes. I'm considering that option now. It would read better. Whether or not it is Synth, depends largely on why it's there. It could as you say, simply be superfluous. I removed it all because of the confusing edit summaries and the above reason regarding the possible SYNTH/TMD/FORKED content - for the purpose discussion prior to reintroduction of relevant material. I'm a relatively new user so sometimes I need to be reminded to keep other options in mind. I'll consider partial removing rather than reversion next time I encounter a similar situation. Thanks for the heads up. Edaham (talk) 13:57, 5 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Saturnalia, if anyone is edit warring it's you. I am sorry if you don't understand what SYNTH means, but that's not my fault. What this content does is add commentary by way of inserting content that while possibly reliably sourced is not related to the subject--except for in the mind of the person adding it. It seems to me that this discussion about the meaning of this word or that is meant to somehow mitigate what sources have said about your subject--that is a textbook example of "SYNTH". It's really essential stuff here on Wikipedia. Drmies (talk) 18:15, 5 November 2017 (UTC)
Right, I'm edit warring... You removed the content with a provocation, I restored it. You reverted me claiming OR/SYNTH, I politely asked for an explanation, and after a day without one, Marek simply removes the content again without any explanation. Another editor restores it and self-rvs as a joke, to which I actually restore it - because no one explained why it was being removed, except some vague claim about OR for which further explanation was requested. So we have this: A long standing version of the article, well sourced content, opposition by two editors for the removal, an explanation was asked for, none was provided, but editors insist on having the article without the content - not the long standing version - before the dispute is discussed on the talk page... And I'm the one on the wrong? lol. I thought you had violated 1RR on that revert and that's why I said I'd bring it to ANI no matter who is edit warring the content out of the article, but it seems that I was mistaken and there was no actual 1RR violation. That being said, as for the actual content dispute,
You're saying it's SYNTH because I don't understand what SYNTH is. That's... not very helpful. You're saying it's reliably sourced but unrelated, and regarding our discussion about it being an explanation you say: It seems to me that this discussion about the meaning of this word or that is meant to somehow mitigate what sources have said about your subject--that is a textbook example of "SYNTH". Now I really don't know what you're talking about. Which subject of mine? Milo? What did the sources say about him that would be mitigated by an explanation of what the terms "hebephilia" and "ephebophilia" mean? Again, even if we were to accept that was a case of SYNTH, why remove the rest? Saturnalia0 (talk) 02:36, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
"Another editor restores it and self-rvs as a joke" - this is actually what was confusing me into reverting and brining this edit through to the BRD process. Also one of those back and forth "joke" edits was marked minor, when it obviously wasn't. In future (no names mentioned) please don't make any joke edits on this page. There's enough back and forth here without compounding the confusion. If there's any material which needs restoring (there was quite a lot) can we bring it up here piece by piece with sources/reasons for inclusion. Thanks, this is a text book example of why we use BRD rather than edit war. Edaham (talk) 02:46, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
My undo of Marek's removal was mistakenly marked "minor" by a misclick on my part while using the "Twinkle" gadget, and was not part of a joke or an intentional misuse of the "minor" flag. Twinkle can be config'd to automatically mark certain reverts as "minor" and give no option of including and edit summary (used for vandalism). It was a mis-click and it was not my intent to treat Marek's removal in that way, so I went to self revert. While self-reverting, I came to my senses, realized I was diving into a drama involving Marek, reconsidered whether that was something I wanted to do, thought "no way" and said as much in my edit summary. So although my edit summary of my self-revert could be read as a joke, my marking of anything as "minor" was a genuine mis-click and I apologize for the confusion. Marteau (talk) 03:30, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
Ok no worries, happens. Would be happy to get the thread back onto the discussion of content rather than meta-level debates about the nature of editing Edaham (talk) 04:05, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

Not to side with Cali Saturnalia0, but I'm wondering how WP:SYNTH is being argued here. With regard to the content in question, I see appropriate use of WP:INTEGRITY (meaning source-ref integrity). If one wants to argue that the "Colloquially, the term paedophile is commonly used interchangeably with child molester" part that is supported by a scholarly source is WP:SYNTH because it's not about Yiannopoulos and/or is off-topic, there is still the fact the other text is about Yiannopoulos. If we are going to include sources/material arguing that Yiannopoulos was supporting child sexual abuse and pedophilia, and note that Yiannopoulos disagrees with the characterization, we should include the sources/material that note that he is technically correct about pedophilia. Right now, the article makes it seem like it's only Yiannopoulos's claim as to what pedophilia is (although readers can click on the Pedophilia article for a clue), when, really, he is technically correct about that disorder and some sources have noted that he is. At Talk:Milo Yiannopoulos/Archive 2#RfC: Should 'the scandal' be referred to as 'allegations of pedarastry' or 'allegations of pedophilia'?, we can see that editors like Only in death and MjolnirPants were concerned about use of the word pedophilia. And at Talk:Milo Yiannopoulos/Archive 3#Pedophilia content, we can see that ResultingConstant was concerned about the "he endorses pedophilia" side only being represented. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 20:25, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

So, Edaham, per what I stated above, are you going to restore the on-topic material, or should I? Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 18:23, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

not in full, no. The segment that belongs in the article per due, pertains to the notable issue of his creating a lot of fuss for appearing to support something controversial. That seems to have been made abundantly apparent in the article already. A portion of the removed text is related to the subject of pedophillia but not really related to the subject of the article. If a preponderance of sources dwelt on his exact wording and the potential pathological/medical fidelity of what he said it might be worth inclusion. I will have a closer look at the source material today and consider reinclusion of info based on the source text if you don't beat me to it, but if you do reinclude it, I'd suggest not rewriting it as before it seemed to take the author's words out of context so as to appear unduely supportive of the subject's efforts to wriggle out of an awkward situation. Edaham (talk) 01:26, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Flyer22 Reborn: "we should include the sources/material that note that he is technically correct about pedophilia"...no, we should not. That is the essence of editorial commentary and we just cannot do that. If another reliable source says that, that's different. But if you want to exercise editorial control here, you can: you can, or we all can, judge whether one source or another uses a term incorrectly, improperly, etc. and then decide to not use that source. Drmies (talk) 03:21, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
Edaham and Drmies, I am quite clearly talking about the portion of the text that relates directly to Yiannopoulos, and there are no WP:SYNTH or off-topic arguments that can justify exclusion in that regard. At all. We have one part of the text stating the following: "Media personalities across the political spectrum condemned Yiannopoulos's original comments, and interpreted them as an endorsement of sexual abuse; CPAC withdrew Yiannopoulos's invitation to speak at their annual event because he had 'condoned pedophilia' through his comments, stating that his apology was inadequate. Editorials in conservative media, including National Review,The Blaze, Townhall, and The American Conservative have characterised his comments as supportive of paedophilia or pederasty." Contrasting that, we have the argument that the following should be restored: "Commentators such as Matthew Rozsa of Salon.com and Margaret Hartmann of New York magazine criticised Yiannopoulos for condoning sex between adults and 13-year-olds, but wrote that Yiannopoulos is technically correct in distinguishing between paedophilia, hebephilia, and ephebophilia. They also noted, however, that the term paedophilia is colloquially used to describe and denounce relationships of the sort promoted by Yiannopoulos."
So we Yiannopoulos stating that he did not endorse pedophilia, and he goes about doing this by explaining what pedophilia technically is, and we have one set of commentators and "editorials in conservative media" stating that Yiannopoulos endorsed pedophilia. And we have commentators/so-called editorials also criticizing Yiannopoulos but noting that he is technically correct about pedophilia despite the colloquial usage of the term. And yet you two are arguing that we should exclude the latter, despite it being very on-topic and relevant and supported by WP:Reliable sources? Why is that exactly? Editors familiar with my work on child sexual abuse and pedophilia topics should know that I don't condone Yiannopoulos's views, except for his definition of pedophilia, which is correct and not merely a view. And many editors know that I am not conservative. So I am not arguing for inclusion of the material because of some absurd or political beliefs or because I like Yiannopoulos. I am arguing for inclusion because there is no solid basis for exclusion, and excluding the fact that some sources have noted that Yiannopoulos's pedophilia definition is not his own, which means that his "I wasn't speaking of pedophilia" argument has some validity, while only presenting the side stating that he was speaking of pedophilia is inherently biased. What makes Salon.com and New York any less reliable or on-topic than National Review, The Blaze, and so on? Yeah, I don't like misuse of the term pedophilia since it stifles people understanding the topic of pedophilia and child sexual abuse (such as the fact that a child sexual abuser can be one's uncle and not some rare pedophile stranger, considering that child sexual abuse is a lot more prevalent than people realize and is not committed solely by pedophiles). But this is not about me.
We can resolve this via a RfC, which I will start if the aforementioned material continues to be excluded. I'm not spending days or weeks debating this. On a side note: No need to ping me to this talk page since it's clearly on my watchlist. I won't ping you two to this section again either. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 15:11, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
RfC sounds good. The thread is getting a bit long anyway. Why not introduce the RfC as a sub thread of this one. Be sure to be specific about the included text, as I'm not sure what precisely what to include from the sources which are under question. Edaham (talk) 15:52, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ Cite error: The named reference MRozsa was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  2. ^ Cite error: The named reference MHartmann was invoked but never defined (see the help page).

RfC: Should the article include text/sources analyzing Yiannopoulos's statements on pedophilia? #0

Collapsed first RfC attempt

On the article's talk page, editors have expressed concern about whether or not a specific piece of text is WP:Synthesis, off-topic and/or editorial commentary. The original piece (seen here) includes text and sources that are and are not about Yiannopoulos. A proposal has been made to only include the text and sources that are specifically about Yiannopoulos. The proposal has been made because the article includes Yiannopoulos stating that he did not endorse pedophilia and elaborating by commenting on the technical definition of pedophilia, and some commentators charging that he did endorse pedophilia. As a result, it has been argued that we should additionally include commentators stating that his definition of pedophilia is technically correct, but also that the term colloquially equates to adults engaging in sexual activity with minors (or specifically committing child sexual abuse), as this analysis relates to Yiannopoulos's pedophilia and child sexual abuse arguments. So should the proposed material be included? For the original and proposed text, see the collapsible templates below. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 18:18, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

Original content

Commentators such as Matthew Rozsa of Salon.com and Margaret Hartmann of New York magazine criticised Yiannopoulos for condoning sex between adults and 13-year-olds, but wrote that Yiannopoulos is technically correct in distinguishing between paedophilia, hebephilia, and ephebophilia, which are defined in the academic literature in line with the Tanner stages. They also noted that the term paedophilia is colloquially used to describe and denounce relationships of the sort promoted by Yiannopoulos. Colloquially, the term "paedophile" is commonly used interchangeably with "child molester".

Proposed content

Commentators such as Matthew Rozsa of Salon.com and Margaret Hartmann of New York magazine criticised Yiannopoulos for condoning sex between adults and 13-year-olds, but wrote that Yiannopoulos is technically correct in distinguishing between paedophilia, hebephilia, and ephebophilia. They also noted that the term paedophilia is colloquially used to describe and denounce relationships of the sort promoted by Yiannopoulos.

Survey

  • Yes. Include proposed content. It's not WP:Synthesis and is directly relevant to Yiannopoulos's claims. The article includes Yiannopoulos stating that he did not endorse pedophilia and citing the technical definition of it. It also includes commentators stating that Yiannopoulos endorsed pedophilia. I see no valid reason to exclude sources (seen here and here) that took the time to analyze the definition of pedophilia, and the associated chronophilias called hebephilia and ephebophilia, in relation to Yiannopoulos's statements, and note that, although he is technically correct about the definition, the term is also used broadly to include statutory rape and child sexual abuse. In fact, this other aspect should be included. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 18:35, 8 November 2017‎ (UTC)
  • No. Sources that do not discuss the subject do not belong in the article. Including the sources to imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by the source is the very definition of WP:SYN. A source that says absolutely nothing about the subject is being included to imply that it says something about the subject. It does not. - SummerPhDv2.0 19:46, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
SummerPhDv2.0, the two sources in question (seen here and here) for the proposed text are specifically about Yiannopoulos. The proposed text is not WP:Synthesis. Like I stated above, what makes Salon.com and New York any less reliable or on-topic than National Review, The Blaze, and so on? Why should we only include the commentators stating that he was endorsing pedophilia, while excluding the ones stating that although he is technically correct about the definition of pedophilia, the term is also used broadly to include statutory rape and child sexual abuse? Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 19:53, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
I might be a bit confused here. I'm looking at "Sexual Offending: Predisposing Antecedents, Assessments and Management", 2015 (cited twice) and "Commentary: Hebephilia", 2011; cited in the "before" text here which clearly are not discussing the subject, his 2016 comments or the 2017 controversy. Sources that do not discuss the subject are clearly off-topic.
Reliable sources, OTOH, headlined as being about the subject are certainly not "off topic". I can't imagine why they would be. Is that the question? - SummerPhDv2.0 22:48, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
SummerPhDv2.0, yeah, that's the question. The text you were looking at is the original text. I'm not arguing to include the original text. I'm arguing to include the proposed text. The text I proposed above leaves out the "Tanner stages" and "paedophile is commonly used interchangeably with child molester" material that is sourced to academics. It's not even needed. Like I stated below, I tried to include sources in the templates above, but it was messing up the setup. If someone can include the sources in the above templates without it messing up the thread, then please do. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 23:06, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
  • oppose - with caution! To arriving editors. This RfC needs to be rewritten. Currently it presents two options, neither of which have yet been added to the article and both of which currently lack consensus. Please add the original text as an option A, B or C if there are three proposed texts. Will assume good faith for now, but there's a good chance someone could be misled into simply thinking that they are being asked to pick one of these options. Please rectify. Please note (if replying) that I intend to redact this comment (and the vote) with strike through once this RfC has been worded correctly. Thanks. Edaham (talk) 22:57, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
Edaham, I'm not sure what you mean. There is no proposal to add the original text. So why do I need to frame the RfC so that there is an option to add the original text? The original text includes what you and another editor argued as WP:Synthesis in the initial discussion. A different editor proposed to add the material without the supposed WP:Synthesis. I proposed that as well. That is what this RfC is about. As for discussion, we discussed above, and I asked you why the proposed text should be excluded. The answer you gave was to go ahead with an RfC on the matter. This RfC is the next step in discussion. And you still have offered no solid reason for opposing the proposed text. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 23:06, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
That's quite alright, if you don't know what I mean I will briefly explain to you, and to other editors. Some text was added to the article and reverted in full several times. The article at present does not contain any of the reverted text. You have opened an RfC and presented two options, both of which include some of the reverted text. This is incorrect. There should be an option which contains the present text as it is now, and before the reverted edits were made. You are sort of saying here, do you want to buy five of my apples or just two, where simply not buying apples might be an option. I hope this is clearer and I'll be happy to produce "solid reasons" pursuant to a correctly formed request for comment. Edaham (talk) 23:26, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
Edaham, your interpretation of the RfC is incorrect, which might be my fault. I did not present two options, which is more than clear by simply reading what the RfC states and what I stated to SummerPhDv2.0 above and Kendall-K1 below. Below, I clearly relayed the following: "I'm asking if the proposed text should be included. This is why I stated, 'A proposal has been made to only include the text and sources that are specifically about Yiannopoulos.' I've made the above RfC wording clearer in this regard. The original text is only included in the above template for comparison." I'm going to close this RfC and start a new one. The new RfC, just like this one, will be about whether or not the proposed text should be included or excluded. I repeat: The only text being proposed for inclusion is the text without the supposed WP:Synthesis. No, I am not going to frame the RfC to ask whether or not we should include the version that has been challenged on WP:Synthesis grounds. No one is asking for that version to be included. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 23:37, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

Discussion

I'm sure we have editors who like and/or prefer the term pedophilia for all adult-underage person sexual activity accusations, especially when it comes to how repugnant the term is with regard to labeling someone or their views, but that is no solid reason to forgo noting that sources acknowledged that Yiannopoulos is technically correct about the term. Like a colleague once stated, "While it is true that 'pedophile' has stigma attached to it that many would rather distance themselves from, it is patently absurd to attempt to contradict decades of research and clinical work just so you can plaster the nastiest label possible on someone." The sources are not endorsing Yiannopoulos's views on adults being sexual with minors as young as 13. They are clear that they don't condone those views, and they also note that the term pedophilia is used more broadly than the technical definition. So I stand by my arguments that this material is not only relevant, but should be included. Except for WP:WikiProject Pedophilia Article Watch, which is inactive, I'll alert the WP:BLP noticeboard and WikiProjects this article is tagged with to this discussion for more input. WP:Law as well. If the WP:Synthesis claims continue regarding the proposed text, I'll alert the WP:Original research noticeboard. I might also alert the WP:Neutral noticeboard. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 20:48, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

I think you need to make the rfc more clear because I can't tell what you're asking. Neither the "original" or the "proposed" text are currently in the article. The two sources you've listed do not support the "original" text so per BLP there is no way you can put that in without additional sources. The "proposed" text seems fine to me except I would remove "such as" (too weasely). Kendall-K1 (talk) 21:55, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
Hi, Kendall-K1. I'm asking if the proposed text should be included. This is why I stated, "A proposal has been made to only include the text and sources that are specifically about Yiannopoulos." I've made the above RfC wording clearer in this regard. The original text is only included in the above template for comparison. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 22:07, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
Also, the original text was supported by different sources and the two sources I noted above. But the original text has been argued as WP:Synthesis. As seen here and here, I tried including the references in the templates for both versions above, but the references kept messing up the setup. I decided not to spend any more time trying to figure out why. If someone knows how to fix that issue so that the references can be added to the templates without the setup being messed up, they are obviously free to do so. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 22:15, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
  • RfCs need to be clearly worded in brief non persuasive language and present all of the options, including the existing/uncontested versions of the text. Typically a sentence, is all that is required to introduce the options as in, "based on the following sources (external links) which of the following texts should be placed in the article a)text b)text c)text" - and that's it. This isn't a street market and you are not selling onions ten for a pound. You also appear to be bludgeoning a point by replying to each of the votes in the RfC. These comments will probably be discounted by editors reviewing the votes and the closing editor, should one be required.Edaham (talk) 23:11, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
See what I stated above. What other options are you speaking of? The only text being proposed for inclusion is the text without the supposed WP:Synthesis. No, I am not going to frame the RfC to ask whether or not we should include the version that has been challenged on WP:Synthesis grounds. No one is asking for that version to be included....unless you are. And there is no "c" option. The options are "include" and "exclude." Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 23:19, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
And you might want to actually read WP:BLUDGEON since clarifying matters in the Survey section does not fit that definition. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 23:23, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
Great, thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia, happy editing! Edaham (talk) 23:35, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

If you start a new proposal, do not collapse the proposed text, and add {{Reflist-talk}} at the end to get the refs to show up. Kendall-K1 (talk) 00:02, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

Kendall-K1, I know how to get the refs to show up, but there were issues, which is why I asked for Johnuniq's help. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 00:11, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
I fixed one ref problem, and that left a total of two references on this entire page, although the references are broken because they assume the reference is defined elsewhere. If there is still a problem, please spell out the issue. Johnuniq (talk) 00:19, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
Johnuniq, I didn't test out your fix to see if the references would then work in the templates. A preview could carry out the test, but, before your edit, some previews came out fine while the live versions did not. So testing your fix might require a live version edit. Either way, I decided to forgo the templates this time, mainly because of Kendall-K1's request. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 00:40, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

RfC: Should the article include text/sources analyzing Yiannopoulos's statements on pedophilia?

Consensus is for the second version of proposed text to be added. --NeilN talk to me 21:48, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

On the article's talk page, there was concern about whether or not the text seen here was WP:Synthesis. The text was considered WP:Synthesis because it included this, this and this source, which are not about Yiannopoulos. A proposal was made to only include the text and sources that are about Yiannopoulos instead. Because existing content in the article includes Yiannopoulos stating that he did not endorse pedophilia (elaborating by commenting on the technical definition of pedophilia) and some commentators charging that he did endorse pedophilia, it has been stated that we should also include commentators acknowledging that Yiannopoulos definition's of pedophilia is technically correct, but also that the term colloquially equates to adults engaging in sexual activity with minors (or specifically committing child sexual abuse). Below is the proposed content:

Proposed content

"Matthew Rozsa of Salon.com and Margaret Hartmann of New York magazine criticised Yiannopoulos for condoning sex between adults and 13-year-olds, but wrote that Yiannopoulos is technically correct in distinguishing between paedophilia, hebephilia, and ephebophilia. They also noted that the term paedophilia is colloquially used to describe and denounce relationships of the sort promoted by Yiannopoulos."[1][2] Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 00:30, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

Matthew Rozsa of Salon.com wrote that although Yiannopoulos is technically correct in distinguishing between paedophilia, hebephilia, and ephebophilia, the practice he was accused of promoting "is still illegal in most parts of the Western world."[1] Margaret Hartmann of New York magazine additionally acknowledged the definitions for hebephilia and ephebophilia, but stated, "The lowest and most common age of consent across the U.S. is 16."[2] Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 04:54, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

Survey

  • Include proposed content. Like I argued above, this version is not WP:Synthesis and is directly relevant to Yiannopoulos's claims. The article includes Yiannopoulos stating that he did not endorse pedophilia and citing the technical definition of it. It also includes commentators stating that Yiannopoulos endorsed pedophilia. I see no valid reason to exclude sources (seen here and here) that took the time to analyze the definition of pedophilia, and the associated chronophilias called hebephilia and ephebophilia, in relation to Yiannopoulos's statements, and note that, although he is technically correct about the definition, the term is also used broadly to include statutory rape and child sexual abuse. In fact, this other aspect should be included. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 00:32, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
  • oppose Neutral, per rewording - the following applies to the struck version inclusion of content as worded above. I'm not opposed to the use of these sources, however there are problems with the wording.
    • 1. The attribution at the beginning suggests that the criticism originates with the authors of the cited editorial pieces and that they were written in alliance or as part of a group indicative of wider support for their position, neither of which is true. Those editorials are pretty straight forward reporting with little to no editorial opinions
    • 2. The word "but" in the proposed article text looks like it is being attributed to the authors of the cited material, implying that the authors disagreed with him on one point, but upheld him on another. This is also not the case. The authors did not use this conjunction, neither did they compose their articles to personally criticize the subject of this article with caveats regarding a portion of his views. The proposed text needs to be more carefully worded to not give the appearance of combining sources, and synthesizing concepts which were not intended by the sources. Edaham (talk) 01:55, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
Note: Taking a closer look at the sources, I changed the proposed wording, per below. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 03:12, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

Discussion

Edaham, your oppose rationale is somewhat odd. The initial proposed text is straightforward. Stating that two authors criticized Yiannopoulos for condoning sex between adults and 13-year-olds, but wrote that he is technically correct in distinguishing between paedophilia, hebephilia, and ephebophilia is not suggesting that the criticism originates with the authors. How can it be suggesting that when the article is already very clear that many people share that same criticism? All the initial proposed text is doing is noting that these two authors also criticized Yiannopoulos, but that they additionally noted that while his definition of pedophilia is the medical definition of pedophilia, the term is also used broadly to include statutory rape and child sexual abuse. We could have easily amended the text to include "also" after the authors names in response to true concern about readers thinking that the criticism originated with them. You stated, "The word 'but' in the proposed article text looks like it is being attributed to the authors of the cited material, implying that the authors disagreed with him on one point, but upheld him on another." If we look at the sources, we see that the first author states "Yiannopoulos' terminology is technically correct" and "Nevertheless, it is still illegal in most parts of the Western world for an adult to have sex with a minor, a practice that Yiannopoulos was accused of defending in the clips." The words but and nevertheless are often used as synonyms and they mean the same thing in the case of this author. The second author simply acknowledges the definitions for hebephilia and ephebophilia. I don't see explicit criticism of Yiannopoulos in that source.

So, taking all of this into account, the text could be worded as follows: "Matthew Rozsa of Salon.com wrote that although Yiannopoulos is technically correct in distinguishing between paedophilia, hebephilia, and ephebophilia, the practice he was accused of promoting 'is still illegal in most parts of the Western world.'[1] Margaret Hartmann of New York magazine additionally acknowledged the definitions for hebephilia and ephebophilia, but stated, 'The lowest and most common age of consent across the U.S. is 16.'"[2] I'll propose this instead above. You are obviously more than free to suggest alternative wording. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 03:08, 9 November 2017 (UTC) Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 04:54, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

I'm going to refrain from entering into further discussion as I'd prefer my comments to be directed to other editors (or a closing official, should it be necessary to review the survey results), who can make their mind up about my assessment and whether or not it contributes toward a consensus. I don't think a discussion between the two of us will bear further fruit, as I can't really address your above comment without simply finding different ways to say what I've already said. I thus hope my lack of a response to your question (assuming it was not rhetorical) will not be construed as impolite. Thanks again for your contributions and discussion. I'd welcome any outside discussion you have regarding the topic in general or my handling of it on my talk page. Edaham (talk) 03:50, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
You are obviously free to refrain from commenting further (in response to me or otherwise). But given that I reworded the text after your initial comment in this RfC and that the rewording is directly supported by the sources, I fail to see what you are still opposing. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 03:53, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
Yes I can see now that you changed the wording, which "edit conflicted" with my reply, which was to the previous (struck out) version of the text. I do appreciate that the changes made address both of the issues I raised. Based on that change I am now neutral as to the inclusion of this material. My lack of opposition can be noted. I hope you can see how the separation of the two attributions and the rewording of the conjunction has an effect on the reader, which may have suggested more weight and support for their comments, than if their comments were separated. I don't want you think I'm just whining about nothing. Matthew Rozsa did indeed actually write that himself rather than just reporting on someone else having said it and that distinction is also important. The new text focuses more on what was actually sad by those reporter without combining them. Whether or not they should now be included is probably a mater of DUE. Thanks. Edaham (talk) 06:03, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
The wording was not mine to begin with. It was wording taken from what was already in the article and tweaked just a bit. If both authors had essentially stated the same thing, then, no, I wouldn't agree that we need to split the sentences so that the authors are not noted in the same sentences. We summarize all the time on Wikipedia. For example, current text in the article states, "Editorials in conservative media, including National Review, The Blaze, Townhall, and The American Conservative have characterised his comments as supportive of paedophilia or pederasty." There is no need to split all of that into individual sentences. Similarly, if Rozsa and Hartmann endorsed the same exact views, there would be no need to state "Matthew Rozsa of Salon.com wrote that although Yiannopoulos is technically correct in distinguishing between paedophilia, hebephilia, and ephebophilia, the practice he was accused of promoting 'is still illegal in most parts of the Western world.'", and then, right after that, "Margaret Hartmann of New York magazine wrote that although Yiannopoulos is technically correct in distinguishing between paedophilia, hebephilia, and ephebophilia, the practice he was accused of promoting 'is still illegal in most parts of the Western world.'" That would be unnecessary redundancy. Instead, we would write, "Matthew Rozsa of Salon.com and Margaret Hartmann of New York magazine wrote that although Yiannopoulos is technically correct in distinguishing between paedophilia, hebephilia, and ephebophilia, the practice he was accused of promoting 'is still illegal in most parts of the Western world.'"
As for WP:Due, I obviously argue that it is WP:Due since the article includes Yiannopoulos stating that he did not condone pedophilia and citing the technical definition to support his comment. The text in question is specifically about that and notes that the definition he is citing is correct. There is no valid reason to exclude this material while retaining the other material. The only reason I can see for someone opposing the material is because they don't want it noted in the article that Yiannopoulos is correct on the pedophilia definition. But again, it is not like these two sources are condoning Yiannopoulos's views. Rozsa acknowledges "still illegal in most parts of the Western world" and Hartmann notes "The lowest and most common age of consent across the U.S. is 16." Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 06:29, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
I hope it's clear from my approach, that I don't want anything other than a good article on the subject. Edaham (talk) 06:33, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

Since the discussion above where this was first brought up is collapsed I ask it here. Why is Editorials in conservative media, including National Review,[124] The Blaze,[125] Townhall,[126] and The American Conservative[127] have characterised his comments as supportive of paedophilia or pederasty. included at all? If it were any other article it would be promptly excluded with grounds of "who cares about fringy conservative media?". Saturnalia0 (talk) 12:40, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

Yiannopoulos is a conservative and he is being denounced by fellow conservatives over his comments. It matters. TheBlaze may be on the fringe side, but The American Conservative seems to have a decent reputation and does not simply push conspiracy theories. Dimadick (talk) 16:52, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

I don't think you can dismiss The National Review as fringy. MarkBernstein (talk) 23:50, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

Note: Pulled this from the archive so that it can be properly closed. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 21:41, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

____

References

  1. ^ a b c Rozsa, Matthew (20 February 2017). "Breitbart editor Milo Yiannopoulos under fire after seemingly condoning sex with minors". Salon. Retrieved 22 February 2017.
  2. ^ a b c Hartmann, Margaret (20 February 2017). "CPAC Blasted for Milo Yiannopoulos Invite After Pedophilia Remarks Resurface". Daily Intelligencer. Retrieved 22 February 2017.
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Alt-right in lede (revisited)

Since the Wikipedia article on alt-right now basically equates it with white nationalism, and Yiannopoulos does not acknowledge himself as the former, nor does the AFD acknowledge him as such (see Political views), nor do any other sources in our article make this accusation, it seems improper to describe him as "associated with the alt-right" (wikilinked) in the lead, at least without making the distinction and without clear attribution. Moreover, it seems that the neologism does not mean necessarily the same today as it meant a year ago, which only makes things more confusing. Saturnalia0 (talk) 02:18, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

He is widely regarded as a champion/icon/provocateur of the alt-right [10][11][12]. The content of another Wikipedia article has no bearing on the properly sourced use of the term here.- MrX 02:29, 21 August 2017 (UTC)
It's strange that "the alt right champion" does not fit in the description from the alt-right article. I can agree if what you're suggesting is that the alt-right article should be changed. But we both know that is not going to happen. So, at the very least the distinction should be made here - as it is made by the AFD and by Milo himself - and attribution is due. Saturnalia0 (talk) 03:12, 21 August 2017 (UTC)
Can you throw up a link to the AFD source? Volunteer Marek (talk) 04:07, 21 August 2017 (UTC)
Based on a quick search for "anti-defamation league milo yiannopoulos", I think it's likely to be this: [13] - Ryk72 'c.s.n.s.' 05:34, 21 August 2017 (UTC)
That's enough to write that Milo has also been called alt-lite.Volunteer Marek (talk) 05:48, 21 August 2017 (UTC)
We have a sentence about that in the article already. Milo Yiannopoulos#Relationship with the alt-right. I agree that this is a bit of a conundrum. Gay Jews are not the alt-right's favorite sort of people. The identification of Milo with the alt-right came about during the early times, when the definition was more nebulous. Maybe we should be looking for sources discussing the same exact thing as us. There might be some out there, so we could cover this discrepancy, instead of trying to "fix it" ourselves. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 12:37, 21 August 2017 (UTC)
"The identification of Milo with the alt-right came about during the early times, when the definition was more nebulous." - right, but what this basically means is that this identification came when they thought the alt-right was hip and cool (see Milo's article on alt-right in Breitbart) and the links to white supremacy were funny jokes or something that should be tolerated for the sake of the general movement. Now, after Charlottesville, they're trying to jump ship and pretend they had nothing to do with it. Which isn't true.Volunteer Marek (talk) 13:48, 21 August 2017 (UTC)
Do you hear that? That pervasive, overpowering sound? That's the sound of me not arguing with you. ;) ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 13:58, 21 August 2017 (UTC)
Come on man, sometimes I just need to agree with somebody somewhere on Wikipedia. Just for a change of pace.Volunteer Marek (talk) 14:20, 21 August 2017 (UTC)
No! Zis is ze Vikipedia!! You vill argue or you vill be shot!!! (Ignore the fact that my previous comment was basically just me saying "I agree with everything VM said" because I was sufficiently snarky about it to avoid the Wiki-SS.) ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 14:58, 21 August 2017 (UTC)
Err, not really, no, the interview to Channel 4 dates back to the first reports crowning him king of the alt-right, and I haven't heard Milo trying to distance himself from anything lately. It's mostly about making a distinction between what is defined in Wikipedia as alt-right and what the sources actually meant when attributing the label to Yiannopoulos. Saturnalia0 (talk) 06:51, 22 August 2017 (UTC)
Of course he's trying to distance himself now that the alt-right movement has been cast into complete mainstream disrepute. If there are reliable sources that say that he's trying to distance himself, we can certainly include that, but it doesn't erase the fact that many sources have already explicitly linked him to the alt-right movement.- MrX 11:09, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

He has been referred to by others as alt-right; something he, himself refutes extensively. It's fair to say that journalists and commentators have called him alt-right while he himself denies it. Scbritton (talk) 02:09, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

So what? Reliable sources call him alt-right. We've already been over this multiple times. Reliable sources win. Grayfell (talk) 06:44, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

And yet again, we see how people cherry-pick their "reliable sources" to serve their own personal ideologies and political agendas. You want a reliable source about his political affiliations? Read his book. Think about this logically for a second: A homosexual guy with Jewish heritage and engaged to be married to a black guy affiliated with the white supremacist - no, sorry, "white nationalist" "alt-right" movement? Nice try, though. Scbritton (talk) 21:33, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

Find a reliable source (that isn't his own writings: people lie about themselves all the time. Hell, Rush Limbaugh has claimed to be a liberal more times than I can count, ffs) that says he's not part of the alt-right and we will happily add it. Until then, keep your bad faith accusations to yourself, lest an admin notice then, go on to notice that you spend most of your time arguing on talk pages instead of editing articles and then decide that you need to be blocked for not being here to contribute to the project. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 21:47, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
But what if they notice that you noticed them noticing? PackMecEng (talk) 22:00, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
I think I would notice them noticing me noticing. If it's a problem, we could always put them on notice. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 22:20, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
I think you just did PackMecEng (talk) 22:31, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
Ahhh, you noticed. ;) ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 22:32, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

Well. Given I made a fairly small change to the entry which got reverted by someone who simply said, "no" without any additional explanation, and given that someone also suggested to me that the change wasn't from a "neutral point of view" (how can "several journalists and publications have claimed him to be associated politically with the alt right" be NOT "from a neutral point of view????" I think you can understand why I am a little cynical about the editorial slant of many of the people who contribute to Wikipedia and then revert the entries of others when they disagree with them.

So, instead of reverting the reversion (and getting into an edit war) I chose to head over here to actually try to talk about the issue and changes - and all I found was a bunch of opinion-based discussion about the nature of what "alt right" means now, what it meant when Breitbart posted the article (co-written by Milo) about Alt-right, and how it has changed now. Milo has explained, frequently, what has happened - and he's right - if you look at the BEHAVIOUR of those who now self-identify as alt-right, and contrast them with the behaviour of Milo, the difference is plain to see.

So what this seems all seems to say to me is (a) there seems to be an anti-milo slant to the editorial content which violates the neutral point of view policy which is being, deliberately or not, overlooked, and b) anyone who mentions anything contrary to this narrative in the talk gets threatened with being blocked. I am attempting to improve the quality of the entry with accurate detail without losing the original text - that yes, people have said he is associated with the alt-right, but he himself disputes that. In fact, nowadays, if a news agency makes such a claim, he gets his lawyers involved. No, I can't cite that (other than by direct quotes of Milo himself) so I'm not going to suggest it get added to the main entry, but it is definitely something to think about.

As for your claim about his book not being a reliable source - ultimately, actions themselves speak louder than words, but you have to take into account how a person self-identifies as well. If he identifies as a cultural libertarian with classical liberal attitudes, then you can examine his behaviour, and say, "yes, his behaviour is consistent with his claim" or "his behaviour is inconsistent with his claim."

Either way, the alt-right label, as it is defined and understood at this time, does not fit with Milo's attitudes, nor does it fit with his behaviour, and numerous sources regarding his homosexuality, Jewish background, and black fiancé backs that up. Scbritton (talk) 03:36, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

You would do better to learn how Wikipedia works with regards to secondary sources and then work within that framework to achieve your goal rather than casting aspersions. Just FYI.--Jorm (talk) 03:39, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
His attitude is only relevant to the extent it's covered by reliable sources. His behavior is his writing and commentary. This is the only thing he's even remotely notable for, and this behavior is what's been linked to the alt-right. Maybe he wasn't truly alt-right, even when he was dubbed the alt-right's poster-boy by other media outlets, but that's not for us to say. He was, for a time, a very, very sympathetic "fellow traveler" and "explainer" of the alt-right. Well, now it has been "explained", and his explanation isn't the one that stuck. The idea that he couldn't be alt-right because he's a target of the alt-right is utterly silly, and is a non sequitur as well. There is no logical reason he cannot champion a movement that hates him, and we know this because it already happened. Certainly not the first time this has happened, either. Him and his followers really, really love to point out, at every opportunity, his 'outsider' status (#notyourshield indeed) but it doesn't matter, and it never did. Whoever he's seen as to them, he rushed to defend literal neo-Nazis by calling them "ironic" and misunderstood. Everyone saw this happening and many people pointed out how questionable this was, even his colleagues at Breitbart.[14][15]
So his behavior and attitude have already been evaluated by reliable sources, not by us. We, as editors, only evaluated what is verifiable. That means sources. If you have sources about his newly litigious anti-alt-right stance, or any reliable sources about this at all, bring them forth for discussion. Otherwise, don't let the door hit you on the way out. Grayfell (talk) 07:05, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
Grayfell...on the way out. You might have meant: "on the way to another Wikipedia article where you will be fully appreciated for contributing your time usefully on creating and editing informative articles." Edaham (talk) 07:29, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
I actually just mean "on the way out of this discussion", but that works too. I appreciate your willingness to assume good faith in me and the other editor, sincerely. That said, bypassing reliable sources to add personal research and opinion is never welcome. It should not be encouraged, even when presented in civil language. Anyone who wants to contribute constructively first has to understand that. Pretending otherwise is just playing a cynical game. Grayfell (talk) 01:56, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

Alright. You win. Congratulations. I have far more important things to do than waste my time trying to constructively improve articles on Wikipedia only to see the changes reverted with little or no explanation. And since there is no literal door, I don't need to worry about it hitting me as I leave, however you should know that your attitudes and approach to me in this discussion, as well as the arrogant, "no" comment in reverting my edit has cast into doubt the credibility of the entire Wikipedia organization - because the attitude you approached me with here, with the aggressive invitations for me to leave etc., is quite likely the attitude of Wikipedia as a whole. And if I can't trust the validity of one article because people refuse to allow edits to make them more neutral, then I cannot trust the validity of anything I find on Wikipedia at all.

All in all, it just goes to show that Wikipedia has gone down the same road as Twitter, Facebook, and Google. Scbritton (talk) 00:58, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

You're raising issues that have already been discussed and dismissed multiple times, so please forgive us for being brusque. If you believe that your personal assessment is more neutral than our interpretation of sources, then your edits are not "more neutral". That's what we're trying to explain. If you've already decided that sources are mistaken and that we're policing the article by not allowing that to be changed, then you're already prejudiced yourself against what those sources have to say. Where are we supposed to go from there?
Again, if you have any reliable sources at all, I encourage you to bring them forth. I genuinely want to change how this article handles "alt-right" to explain that it was an ephemeral cultural moment, but I haven't seen the sources to support this. It doesn't matter if we agree with each other or not, what matters is WP:V. Grayfell (talk) 01:56, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
WP has an obvious and readily identifiable single "voice". That voice espouses whatever view the dominant group of experts in any given field espouse. If you think, for one second that Twitter, Facebook or Google speaks in a single voice, then you know absolutely nothing about any of those services, or how they work. I'm sorry, but that's just an incredibly uninformed comparison. It does, however, raise an interesting issue, because FB, Twitter and the big G all speak with a variety of voices, all freely generated by a significant portion of the population in a way that's representative of society as a whole. In effect, they speak with the uncounted voices of society itself. This means that any perceived shift towards disagreement with your own views that you see in them is a shift towards disagreement with your own views by society itself. And if society itself disagrees with your views, then perhaps you should give some serious thought to what your views are and why you hold them. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 02:21, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
@Scbritton:, If you "have far more important things to do than waste your time trying to constructively improve articles on Wikipedia", (except for this one), are you sure you need to maintain an account here? Hopefully you didn't sign up just to edit this one article and are also interested in other areas of encyclopedic knowledge. I believe, for example, there's an open competition to photograph monuments at the moment. Edaham (talk) 05:34, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

Okay - rebutting some of the points made here - first, I don't "maintain an account here". I registered back in 2011 and made an edit to an entry. I believe it remained or was tweaked. I don't really recall. That said, I did look at deleting my account last night, but discovered Wikipedia doesn't allow you to delete your account.

Next - regarding Facebook, twitter, et. al, I'm not talking about the users, but about the administration of those services. Just ask Jame Damore about the editorial and ideological slant of those in charge of the operation of Google, for example. I, personally, am perfectly at ease with my own opinions and ideology, whether it is in line with "general society" or not. Either way, that is largely irrelevant here, as Greyfell has indicated. - and thank you for de-escalating the tone, by the way.

Now, I think the key elements of the issue are these: the media has labeled Milo as Alt. Right. He, himself, disputes and refutes this. I think, because this entry is specifically about Milo, and that he disagrees with the labels given to him, that deserves some treatment. I also think it is reasonable to show that the media has labeled him alt-right, which is why my original edit left it in. If it was totally up to me, I'd leave it out entirely, but that would go against the whole idea of neutrality here on Wikipedia. Then, with that in mind, perhaps it needs to say this:

"... claimed by the media to be politically associated with the alt-right, a claim he personally disputes." And then provide verifiable citations to him personally disputing the claims - after all, if the entry indicates he personally disputes it, it would make sense to cite where he has disputed it. If a YouTube video of him giving a talk where he corrects an introduction of him, or a news video of him disputing the alt-right label, then I can provide that with some time to search it out, or, otherwise, I can search out some printed sources, all depending on what you will accept as "verifyable sources." Scbritton (talk) 13:56, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

I thought you said "Alright. You win. Congratulations. I have far more important things to do than waste my time trying to constructively improve articles on Wikipedia." So why are you still here? ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 14:26, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
I did; and I noticed there had been a reply when I clicked a link to another Wikipedia entry by mistake, so I read it, and decided that greyfell had de-escalated the tone. That said, how does your latest response to me actually serve to advance the discussion in any way, other than an attempt to make yourself feel good with a cheap shot? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Scbritton (talk • contribs) 14:33, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
By reminding you that you had already agreed to stop arguing about the subject in the (faint) hopes that you would decide to stand by your word and move on to better things. How does your response do any of that? ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 14:37, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
Is it your intention to just drive people you don't like off the site? That's rather unbecoming. Look - if you want to be an ass about things, that's up to you, and in that case, I'll govern myself accordingly by ignoring you. If you want to return to discussing what changes can improve this entry on Milo, then there is something worth discussing. But if you continue to make this about me, rather than about Milo, you're just wasting space. Scbritton (talk) 14:49, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
Addendum - it seems that I (and you) violated the tenets of this. Scbritton (talk) 14:59, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
If my comment about a drinking game is enough to drive you off the site, then I suspect the problem isn't me. I've already given you the "serious" response above, as have others. No-one has accepted your argument. If you want to storm off in a tizzy, that's your right. If you want to announce that you're going to storm off in a tizzy, that's also your right. But if you're going to announce that you're storming off in a tizzy, then stick around to keep applying wood to horse carcass because someone had the temerity to introduce a little levity into the thread, then you're just plain being disruptive, and that's a no-no. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 15:08, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
Read up above. I have made a new, revised proposed change. If you think that I'm engaging in a case of applying wood to horse carcass, while Grayfell has indicated a strong desire to actually improve this section, then that's your problem. Scbritton (talk) 16:55, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Anyway... Your proposed change is not substantially different from those which have already been proposed multiple times before, so this is beating a dead horse. The use of passing mentions or his own self-published social media to dispute reliable sources is false balance. Evading reliable sources by using words like "WP:CLAIMed" is non-neutral for multiple other reasons as well. WP:WEASEL comes up a lot, also. Examples of him disputing the label are not what I meant, and are of limited value. We already have those, and they are not sufficient to undermine the large volume of reliable sources making the connection.
What I would like to see is reliable, independent sources about his usage of the term alt-right, or independent sources specifically about the shift in usage and perceived meaning that coincides with his de facto embrace of the term. I don't think it's a controversial opinion that there was a shift in usage and perception of the term, even if its core meaning was always tied to race and neoreactionary nonsense. I would like to see reliable sources supporting this. For this article, those sources would need to mention Yiannopoulos by name. Without those sources, I don't see any reason to change this, and so far no new reason has been proposed. Grayfell (talk) 21:18, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
You are setting the bar impossibly high, either unconsciously though bias you're unaware of, or otherwise. You're asking for credible sources based on an interpretation of behaviour seen through the observer's own biases and filters. That's inherently non-neutral. A neutral point of view would be to present the facts of the case - what commentators say about him, what he says himself, what the alt right says about him, and what his actions themselves indicate. That would be far too much to include in the abstract, which is what we are talking about here, so it clearly needs to be pared down to something more concise. This is why I sugggested "claimed by some" (or something like that) as a wording. This change doesn't remove the alt-right suggestions - which should keep his critics happy, while it does cover off the fact that he (and the alt-right as well, including The Daily Stormer) denounces and disavows them. If this was in the main text of the article, where more detail and information is provided to expand on the points, I would agree with you that it is weasel words - but an abstract is there to give an overview rather than the full detail and information; and that is why I think you are setting the bar impossibly high. Scbritton (talk) 14:29, 27 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Some of your ideas on neutrality
    • "A neutral point of view would be to present the facts of the case" - this is correct. Review the linked guideline on "facts"
    • "what commentators say about him" - we prefer secondary sourced commentary from mainstream sources.
    • "what he says himself" - it is possibly to include information from primary sources within the guidelines set down in due weight. Granted the subject of the article does talk about himself a lot, but coverage on him by secondary sources outweighs this and is preferentially included when available - as is the case here. The subject of this article disagrees with almost everything reliable sources say about him, and to add his commentary after each sentence, besides being unduely weighted, would make for a tedious and confusing article.
    • "what the alt right says about him". - The inclusion of commentary by sources which identify as "alt-right" is covered by the above. Mainstream sources are preferential to fringe sources set up to support or provide forums for specific ideologies.
    • "and what his actions themselves indicate." - wp:synth and wp:or apply here. We shouldn't infer or attempt to speculate what his actions indicate. This might seem counterintuitive in this case, but it's how we've decided to undertake the Wikipedia project. Ideally none of the text in the project should be indicated, it should be sourced or excluded. This isn't always the case, but it is what we are aiming for and it is among the reasons that we open the project to anyone to edit, so they can quickly fix parts of the project which have been invented by our editors or incorrectly or inadequately sourced.
      • in summary, the editor you are talking to isn't biased, he's following a set of guidelines or policies, the net result of which is a conflict with what you wish to write in the encyclopedia. A firm grasp of these policies will either a) enable you to introduce content into the encyclopedia without being reverted or b) bring you to the realization that certain editing practices are unfit for the project. To cite a personal example, I hold a religious belief and the Wikipedia article on that faith says things in it I "know" to be fundamentally untrue or negatively biased. I don't try to alter the parts of the article I personally disagree with though because the only things I have to contradict what the article says are from my own experience or from written material by members or advocates of the church. In either case an understanding of the highlighted policies and guidelines will help you distinguish between your editorial colleagues and your political opponents, which is something you seem to be having trouble with per your previous post. Always happy to help!

Edaham (talk) 15:35, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

Everyone - that's 100% of the population - is biased one way or another. I wasn't accusing the other individual of being a political opponent, I was indicating that he was setting the bar impossibly high. Note as well the line, from above: "...setting the bar impossibly high EITHER unconsciously through bias you're unaware of, OR otherwise." The "or" before "otherwise" and the clause "through bias..." comes as a complete unit after "either". Suggesting that "bias" is not included with "otherwise." It therefore could be be a different interpretation of the rules, or could be overt gaming the system to ensure that a certain perspective gets advanced. It isn't my intent to ascribe motivation, just to point out that the bar is being set impossibly high. Scbritton (talk) 21:37, 27 September 2017 (UTC)
As for the comment about "what his actions themselves indicate." On that, I take your point - you're right. It shouldn't be what his actions themselves indicate, but, rather, "his actions themselves" [and documented with secondary, independent source material.]Scbritton (talk) 21:43, 27 September 2017 (UTC)
How many experienced editors have told you that you are wrong? If you can't stop pushing this, you're going to end up blocked, because this nonstop arguing is growing disruptive. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 22:22, 27 September 2017 (UTC)
Please stop threatening me with being blocked. I'm not arguing, I'm discussing the issue. I'm attempting to improve the article on Milo within the guidelines that have been set forth. In the process, we clearly are involved in a disagreement over the interpretation of these guidelines. Obviously until we can agree on a wording, nothing is going to get changed; but continually threatening me with "being blocked" when I'm attempting to (a) understand how you are interpreting the guidelines and (b) work within them to improve the article, and (c) discuss the interpretation of the guidelines so we can accomplish what we are trying to accomplish, is counterproductive.

Scbritton (talk) 00:29, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for reading some of the words I wrote. You need to read the highlighted links in blue also. It might help if you imagine that you've just joined a theater company, where lots of the actors have spent many years rehearsing their lines. Now imagine that you start scrawling notes on their manuscripts with a magic marker and telling them (repeatedly in a shrill voice) that they have got it all wrong. Look at their faces. What expressions are they wearing? Read the links in blue. Thanks. Edaham (talk) 00:16, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
Already have. Just because I've only replied to some of what you've written doesn't mean I haven't gone through everything you've provided. Thanks. Scbritton (talk) 00:29, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

"claimed[weasel words] by the media[who?] to be politically associated with the alt-right, a claim he personally disputes.[citation needed]" And then provide verifiable citations to him personally disputing the claims - after all, if the entry indicates he personally disputes it, it would make sense to cite where he has disputed it. If a YouTube video of him giving a talk where he corrects an introduction of him, or a news video of him disputing the alt-right label, then I can provide that with some time to search it out, or, otherwise, I can search out some printed sources, all depending on what you will accept as "verifyable sources.

Scbritton talk, [16]

For the love of god don't feel you have to reply to everything I have written. Your having read and understood Wikipedia's core policies, will be evident in your future posts on talk pages, in which you hopefully either, supply reliable sources or reason from a policy based stand point about why the article needs to change. You came closest in the quoted text to the right ->
When you suggested an edit, and noted the fact that the change requires a source. We'd really really prefer a wp:secondary source for this. The subject of this article generally prefixes interviews by reeling off an interleaved bullet list of rejections of the various ways in which he was introduced by the person interviewing him. As I mentioned before, citing all of his personal rejections of the way he is characterized by the sources we use would be 1)wp:primary, 2)wp:undue 3)bloody tedious. It is not outside the realm of possibility to make this edit stick and there are cases where you know something to be a fact and need to trawl up a source for it, but please actually do the spade work and don't rely on your prowess on redit and other forums to wp:bludgeon the point into the article because it won't work. Please address the tags I've placed on your proposal and consider sourcing it as recommended. Edaham (talk) 01:33, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Edaham, I think we've approached WP:SHUN time. Scbritton is just not getting what either of us (or any of the other experienced editors at the top of this giant thread) is telling him. There's no point in further engagement, because we're not going to be able to explain anything to their satisfaction. So let's just stop. If they start edit warring in the article, an admin will deal with them. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 02:00, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
  • MjolnirPants, I tend to agree, but despite the manner in which the editor is comporting him or her self, the proposal is relatively reasonable and could be made to stick if properly sourced. I'll leave the info, with all of my wikilinking to the PAGs there for any other interested editors who want to have a knock at the subject. Also it is a good opportunity for me to practice some advanced formatting. Did you like my quote box? Edaham (talk) 02:08, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
Oh, I agree. The problem is that whole ...if properly sourced. bit. And it's a huge problem. I actually agree in principle with the statement "Milo has disassociated himself from the alt-right" because of course the gay guy with a Jewish mother would distance himself from the alt-right. I also agree that the alt-right has distanced itself from Milo because of course the alt-right would distance itself from a gay guy with a Jewish mother. But without those sources...
Oh, and it's a very nice quote box. Maybe you should make a dedicated template out of it, like {{quote-float}} or something. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 02:23, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

How can liberal lunatics here still call him alt-right? Watch https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D8OcCLV-IEI&feature=em-uploademail and tell us again how he is "alt-right"? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bobman84 (talk • contribs) 10:00, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

People who look at Wikipedia and see political adversaries, as opposed to editorial colleagues, and make editorial judgments based on this misconstruction of the situation (rather than policy) are typically the people who are actually pushing a POV. That being said you might want to reassess your approach if you want to have your contributions weighed against those from editors who are engaging in the project with Wikipedia's core interests in mind.
Milo Yiannopoulos says, as a gay Jew married to a black man, he hates the alt-right movement. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YylNZwsFwpU

All mention of alt-right should be removed from this article. He is not alt-right.Neutralmind (talk) 15:08, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

I disagree with all references being removed from the wikipedia page about Alt-Right and Milo, but I do think he should not be considered Alt-Right because both himself and the more influential people in the Alt-Right both say they Milo isn't part of the Alt-Right. I don't see how people outside of the Alt-Right gets to define what the Alt-Right is, especially the massive lack of due diligence in understanding what they are reporting on in mainstream journalism these days. C.D. Random (talk) 09:12, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

Whether he "should" be considered alt-right is a moot point and completely irrelevant to this discussion. Wikipedia does not consider him to be alt-right. Reliable sources say he is alt-right. Wikipedia reports that reliable sources say he is alt-right.
The alt-right does not get to say who is and who isn't alt-right for several reasons. First, if only the alt-right gets to say who is alt-right, who decided who is alt-right enough to define who is alt-right?
Next we have the "True Scotsman" situation -- anything disreputable seen among the alt-right, the alt-right simply defines as something the alt-right does not do.
Finally, there's press release syndrome. Every organization defines itself in glowing terms. Pick a group -- any group. Their stated mission is, essentially, to make the world better. From your local charity comforting dying children to that despotic regime killing millions of people in horrible ways, they all define themselves as trying to make the world a better place. Independent reliable sources clarify who is doing what and why. Wikipedia calls it "verifiability". It's a significant aspect of the project that you have been arguing against for quite some time now. You cannot upend part of the basic structure of the project because you do not like what it says about one person. Independent reliable sources say he is alt-right. Wikipedia will continue to say he is alt-right. If you cannot accept that, you will need to either start a discussion to change WP:V or find a project other than Wikipedia to work on. - SummerPhDv2.0 15:53, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

Milo's Facebook groups

I know this sounds irrelevant, but Milo's personal account is in a lot of right-leaning Facebook groups such as Cellulites: Salvation, Republic of Kekistan, ANCAPISTAN® and DC9. Probably not a big deal but I just wanted to point it out. I'm a primary source because I'm in these groups with Milo. He doesn't post much in the groups but when he does, people react to it heavily. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Brodyargo (talk • contribs) 03:51, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

Milo Yiannopolis's opening description

Just curious as to why Milo Yiannopolis is simply listed as "Author" when in reality he can quite legitimately be described as a New York Times Bestselling Author, which I feel is even more important to note for such a contraversial figure.

I pray this is not some sort of underlying bias. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:56A:7087:5700:75BE:286:25DD:B7C8 (talk) 10:43, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

Because WP:WEASEL. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 13:23, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Milo Yiannopoulos. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:03, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

Protected

Please remember that this article is under discretionary sanctions. The recent edit war is not accompanied by any meaningful dialogue here, so I have protected the article. Guy (Help!) 09:44, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 26 December 2017

Under the subpara Sydney, the name Malcolm Roberts is mis-spelt. Please change Malcom --> Malcolm. 'Cheers, Loopy30 (talk) 13:51, 26 December 2017 (UTC) Loopy30 (talk) 13:51, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

Done NeilN talk to me 16:26, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 28 December 2017

This section of the article is worded in a biased manner. Toward the end of the article this information is restated fairly in a comparably neutral and professional manner.

"The charge arises from a video clip in which he said that sexual relationships between 13-year-old boys and adult men and women can be "perfectly consensual" and positive experiences for the boys.[8] Following the release of the tape, Yiannopoulos was forced out of his position at Breitbart, and lost a contract to publish his autobiography with Simon and Schuster. Yiannopoulos has denied that he is a supporter of such relationships, and claimed that his statements were an attempt to cope with his own past victimhood, as an object of child abuse by unnamed older men. "

"forced out of his position at Breitbart " should be changed to "voluntarily resigned from" as stated correctly later in the article/as is recorded from other sources as the official version. The writer states the full scope of the accusations without stating the full defense of Yiannopoulos to the accusations, as stated later in the article, deliberately making the description appear opinionated/biased in favor of the accusations. 12.202.186.66 (talk) 16:23, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit protected}} template. NeilN talk to me 16:24, 28 December 2017 (UTC)
This is a function of the lede/body being sourced differently. The lede uses two sources that only state he resigned. The body uses two sources that indicate he resigned under both direct and indirect (his co-workers threatening to quit if he wasn't got rid of) pressure. So the lede as written is not supported by the sources used for that particular bit, however the body does have sources that support 'forced out' - where forced out is being used to paraphrase 'unwillingly resigned' or 'jumped before pushed' etc. 'Resigned under pressure' would be a more accurate term regardless. Only in death does duty end (talk) 16:56, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

Simon & Schuster Comments on 'Dangerous'

Hi all, just to say that I have updated the 'Dangerous' (book) page, to include details of editorial comments from Simon & Schuster. I just wondered if some or all of this information should be included on this page, in the relevant section. Jono1011 (talk) 17:56, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 28 December 2017

  • In the infobox, please pipe [[United Kingdom]] to [[United Kingdom|UK]] to avoid line-wrapping as allowed by MOS:ABBR#Countries and multinational unions.
  • Please move the citation for Mr. Yiannopoulos' birth name from the infobox to the opening paragraph of the "Early life and personal life" section as recommended by WP:INFOBOXCITE.
  • The phrase "media personality" in the lead appears nowhere else in the article, and is uncited. However, since the body of the article does discuss Mr. Yiannopoulos' celebrity, and since "media personality" redirects to "celebrity" anyway, please change the former wikitext to the latter.
  • As the article at Breitbart News doesn't italicize the name of its topic, and since Breitbart News is not a newspaper, please remove italicization of "Breitbart News" from throughout the article.
  • "Cultural libertarian" and "cultural libertarianism" are both piped and linked to cultural liberalism without that (single-sourced) article mentioning "libertarianism" at all. Please remove these links.
  • Please pipe "neo-Nazi" to link to "neo-Nazism".
  • Please pipe "white supremacist" to link to "white supremacy".
  • Please pipe "ghost-written" to link to "ghostwriter".
  • Please elaborate in the lead that The Kernel is an online magazine.
  • As an official, trademarked name, please change "Simon and Schuster" to "Simon & Schuster".
  • The infobox claims Mr. Yiannopoulos' residence is Doral, Florida, but no reliably-sourced prose exists in the article to support it. Please remove this line from the infobox.
  • The infobox claims a "John" to be Mr. Yiannopoulos' spouse, but no reliably-sourced prose exists in the article to support it. Please remove this line from the infobox. — fourthords | =Λ= | 17:48, 28 December 2017 (UTC)
Random watcher here: I have no objection to any of these changes. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 21:05, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

religion again

Archive 3 (which could not be edited) has the statement, regarding whether MY is a "practicing Roman Catholic", "we should take a person's word for it and move on." The problem is we don't have his word for it. We have Bloomberg stating it as a fact, and the Tablet Magazine stating "Yiannopoulos identifies religiously as Catholic". One comment in one of the archives linked to a YT video where he (according to the poster) says he is Catholic, but that video has been deleted. I propose that "A practising Roman Catholic, Yiannopoulos states his maternal grandmother was Jewish" be changed to something like "Yiannopoulos, who reportedly claims to be a practising Roman Catholic, states that his maternal grandmother was Jewish". --Richardson mcphillips (talk) 15:02, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

I don't see anything objectionable about this. I'll do it now. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 15:26, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
Intersects poorly with multiple sections of WP:WTW; particularly WP:ALLEGED & WP:SAID. The Bllomberg source looks sufficient to verify this as factual: they state is as fact; we consider that they would have done their research. - Ryk72 'c.s.n.s.' 15:40, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
"Reported" and "alleged" are two very different words, with very different meanings. In this case, I don't see how "reported" softens the claim enough to shift the implication that "Milo says he is a practicing Catholic" to one in which "somebody claims Milo said he is a practicing Catholic, but he might not have ever actually said it." ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 16:01, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
"Reported" and "alleged" may be very different words; but "reportedly" and "allegedly" are synonyms. The text used the adverb forms. - Ryk72 'c.s.n.s.' 16:07, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
Strictly speaking, but they carry very different connotations. "Reportedly" implies that it is accurate, while "allegedly" does not. Indeed, to some people "allegedly" implies that it is not true. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 16:11, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
I don't understand why we would hedge this. "Reportedly claims" is dripping with skepticism, even if "reportedly" isn't as strong as "alleged". With the Jewish grandmother issue, we had some sources which provided context for why this would be worth additional caution. Does any source similarly contextualize him being Catholic? If not, we should just say it in simple terms as a bland detail. "Yiannopoulos is a practicing Catholic." Good enough. Grayfell (talk) 06:01, 3 January 2018 (UTC)
Generally when it comes to religion or ethnicity on a BLP we state as fact if a person self-identifies (say in an interview), and attribute it if reported by others. The hedging is because these are quite contentious areas and getting it wrong can (in some circumstances) cause real problems. I agree with MPants that reportedly is better than alledgedly (due to the common inference of both words) but tbh both are not good. There must be a better way to phrase it so its attributed but not with an inference it may not be true. Only in death does duty end (talk) 09:17, 3 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Honestly, at this point there are so many RSes taking his claimed faith at face value, I'd be okay with no attribution whatsoever. Just state that he's catholic and be done with it. Except for claims which have an obvious possible ulterior motive to them (such as Milo's claims about Jewish ancestry), I see no reason to doubt self-reported religious beliefs. Even then, better sourcing is all that's needed for us to say it (again, just like Milo's claims about Jewish ancestry). I honestly don't see much difference between "Milo claims to be Catholic" and "Milo reportedly claims to be Catholic" in terms of inferences of doubt, as I outlined above. But if it's contentious at all, we should just drop the attribution. We have at least one RS already stating it as a given, and here's another one. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 14:22, 3 January 2018 (UTC)
I keep going back and forth on this. I'm concerned that because there are so many legitimately controversial things about Yiannopoulos, we are transferring appropriate skepticism to trivial details, which is basically gossip. "Reportedly" seems like a filler word in this case. Who is doing the reporting, and why is the reporting aspect worth emphasizing? Do we doubt the "report"? If anyone was legitimately contesting this, we should be able to explain who and why. If we don't have sources for that, adding extra words to explain this is unnecessary. That it also implies doubt seems like reason enough, but even without that, I don't know what purpose this phrasing serves. Since we're not attributing this to Bloomberg or whoever, nor should we, Wikipedia is "reporting" this by proxy. Let's just say it, instead. Grayfell (talk) 23:18, 3 January 2018 (UTC)
Fuck it, let's just say he's Hindu and all argue against anyone who disagrees. We'll lie about what the sources say even when others can read the sources for themselves, and get at least a dozen others in on it. We'll keep it going for a year or two, then get the inevitable admin who joined the Hindu side to revdel all the edits arguing about it and wipe it out of the archives and pretend like it never happened. We'll deny ever claiming he was Hindu to anyone who brings it up. Epic cooperative trolling on a whole new level. You in? ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 00:08, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
Thumbs up icon Seems like a reasonable compromise to me. Grayfell (talk) 01:16, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 10 January 2018

Third paragraph: please replace [[Leslie Jones]] with [[Leslie Jones (comedian)|Leslie Jones]]. The former link is to a disambiguation page. 134.223.230.155 (talk) 21:03, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

 DoneᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 21:07, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

Alma mater

While it's not impossible for this to be used to refer to a place one attended, in the cases I've seen it used it's only for places one graduated from. It might be confusing to list places Yiannopoulos did not graduate from as his alma mater. Thoughts? PeterTheFourth (talk) 15:57, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

Alt-right

Milo Yiannopoulos has repeatedly disavowed the alt-right, and his views are not consistent with the white supremacists of the actual alt-right. I think the term "alt-right" ought to be removed from the "Movement" section on the right-hand column. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:141:100:9200:4D85:C5C0:8CC7:E04D (talk) 16:16, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

His views were highly influential on the conservative population, and had a huge effect on drawing non-white supremacists into the 'alt-right' banner. He effectively obfuscated the origins of the alt-right movement for a lot of people, and garnered them a great deal of support from mainstream conservatives. Disassociating him from the alt-right because he ended up disowned by the core (and disowning the group) after many months of endless promotion would be a disservice to the reader. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 16:28, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
Further to my most recent edit, during an interview with the BBC, Yiannopoulos argues that the alt-right takes a number of different forms, from 'classical-liberals, disaffected leftists, ordinary conservatives, and this new young very energised, trolly, mischievous youthful contingent that has suddenly become interested in politics again, and that's the wing that I am most closely associated with, because that's the most exciting bit'. With this in mind, I don't think that it is accurate to say that Yiannopoulos has 'repeatedly disavowed the alt-right'. Jono1011 (talk) 23:29, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
Yeah that pretty much tracks with everything I've seen, see alt-lite for a bit about the not-overtly-racist spinoff of the alt-right. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 01:51, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

The term alt-right has changed over the last few years. It initially included lots of non-racists ('classical-liberals, disaffected leftists, ordinary conservatives', etc.), but now basically means white supremacists. Given how much the term has changed since Yiannopoulos used it in that earlier quote, it's no longer appropriate to have alt-right listed as the first thing under 'Movement'. Alt-lite seems reasonable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:141:100:9200:E434:8A08:9F3C:F801 (talk) 15:37, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

In principle, I completely agree. However, we don't currently have the sourcing for it. At some point (and it's possible that point happened some months ago and we just don't know about it), a reliable source will document the racist/non-racist camps of the early alt-right and their split into the alt-right and alt-lite camps, and clearly assign Milo to the latter. When and if such a source is found, I will happily fulfill any edit request to change this which presents said source. I would ideally like to make it clear that he was formerly associated with the alt-right, but once the group started to schism, became more closely associated with the alt-right. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 16:14, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

Seeing as he actively solicited ideas for articles from neo-Nazis and the "white supremacist kind of alt-right" I think this point is moot.Volunteer Marek (talk) 17:42, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

He'll forever be linked to the alt-right, and even associated with them. But I think it's pretty clear to anyone who looks into it that he's not a part of the alt-right anymore. We just need the sources to catch up, and we don't have that. Not yet, anyways. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 17:50, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

Edit Request

The link to the ABC article "Milo self-publishing book dropped by Simon and Schuster" should be corrected to http://abcnews.go.com/amp/Entertainment/wireStory/milo-publishing-book-dropped-simon-schuster-47863181

(it's currently http://abcnews.go.com/Entertainment/wireStory/milo-publishing-book-dropped-simon-schuster-47863181, which redirects to the main ABC page)

Joereddington (talk)

 Done ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 16:19, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

Leak of book edits, claim

Should this be included in the Book section? "Milo Yiannopoulos accused Simon & Schuster of humiliating him by disclosing embarrassing editorial notes — while refusing to hand over documents he needs to prove his $10 million lawsuit against the publisher for canceling his book deal."[17] C. W. Gilmore (talk) 19:52, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for raising this issue. This point is mentioned in the main article, for which there is link on this page. With this in mind, I'd be inclined not to include this point. Jono1011 (talk) 12:11, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

Privilege Grant

As of January 16, 2018 the Privilege Grant website no longer functions. It doesn't appear to have been acknowledged by any other media though, which may constitute original research. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.232.65.119 (talk) 00:40, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Milo Yiannopoulos. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:56, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

Alt-right writing here

It seems to me that this article is not neutral and that alt-right members are writing here. Apparently, whole sections have Breitbart and Buzzfeed as single sources. But when someone uses reliable sources like Pink News, the sections are undone. He is selling t-shirts with logos like "lesbians aren't real" and mocking transgender people. But it seems not reliable to quote Milo anymore.

This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

'Lesbians aren't real'

Yiannopoulos repeatedly claimed that he doesn't belief in lesbians, selling t-shirts bearing the phrase "lesbians aren't real," explaining that lesbians just are "even more confused straight women!"[1]

Transgender

[Equal rights law Title IX is being] used to put men in to women’s bathrooms. I have known some passing trannies in my life… which is to say transgender people who pass as the gender they would like to be considered [...] The way that you know he’s failing is I’d almost still bang him. It’s just…it’s just a man in a dress, isn’t it? I should reapply my lipstick.

— Milo Yiannopoulos at the University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee[2]

Milo is known for his transphobic slurs, spreading his hate-filled rhetoric at different universities and in the public sphere in general. He claims that transgenders are "mentally ill" and "gay men dressing up for attention." "Never feel bad for mocking a transgender person," he declared at the Dangerous Faggot Tour.[3] After the University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee "ignored repeated warnings" about Milo, he entered the stage to single out a trans student.[2]

References

  1. ^ "Milo Yiannopoulos claims lesbians are 'confused straight women'". PinkNews. Retrieved 2018-01-31.
  2. ^ a b "University ignored warnings about far-right speaker, leaving him free to bully trans student on stage". PinkNews. Retrieved 2018-01-31.
  3. ^ "Gay internet troll Milo Yiannopoulos goes on transphobic tour of America". PinkNews. Retrieved 2018-01-31.

I hope an admin will take care of it.--APStalk 19:36, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

  • Pink News has been loosely rejected as an RS at WP:RSN previously. See here. I'm not saying they're entirely unreliable, but a discussion would probably need to happen before they could be considered acceptable as a source for negative claims about living people. I doubt they would be.
  • The majority of regular editors of this page have indicated a socially liberal ideology. This includes myself, you can see on my user page that I identify as "a (male) skeptical liberal atheist feminist American gun nut SJW". The notion that this page has been hijacked by the alt-right is both offensive and incredibly ignorant.
  • Milo's comments on lesbians, or the fact that he sells offensive T-shirts is not, be default, worthy of inclusion. One must first show that these things satisfy our due weight requirements. In other words, they must be discussed by multiple, independent reliable sources.
  • Under no circumstances will we ever write that "Milo is known for his transphobic slurs, spreading his hate-filled rhetoric..." per WP:BLP, our policy page on how we write about living people. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 19:47, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 11 February 2018

Remove alt right he is not alt right Asmell19 (talk) 19:50, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

The article doesn't say that he is --Epipelagic (talk) 20:12, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

Attitudes towards Islam

The current page includes a number of references to Yiannopoulos's attitude towards Islam. I have two suggestions, one general and one specific:

  1. Would it be helpful to collate this information into a single section - the controversies/political views section would seem sensible
  2. On a specific note, I think it would be valid to include comments made by Yiannopoulos during his 2017 Australian tour, in which he suggested that "Anyone who describes himself as a Muslim [should be sent] back to the Middle East'. This statement is cited in a number of reliable sources and would, I believe, satisfy the due weight requirement.Jono1011 (talk) 14:44, 6 February 2018 (UTC)
He says he disapproves of all Muslims—except his boyfriend of 10 years. [18] --Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 15:31, 6 February 2018 (UTC)
Okay, that one looks alright. I can only find one reference to Milo talking about Muslims in the article though (see "He had demanded the university's Muslim Students Association be shut down."), so I don't think two mentions is enough for a section. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 15:45, 6 February 2018 (UTC)
I agree with ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants but the lead says He is a critic of feminism, Islam,. My suggestion would be to expand his views on Islam or remove Islam from the list as it is undue. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 15:51, 6 February 2018 (UTC)
I agree that a separate section is probably not merited. Re: the second point, evidence of anti-Islamic sentiments, from reliable sources, can be found here and here. I think these merit inclusion in the main article and taken together suggest that we should retain reference to Islam in the opening paragraph.Jono1011 (talk) 16:13, 6 February 2018 (UTC)
Sputnik is not held to be a generally reliable source here, because it's controlled by the Russian govn't and used for propaganda. I'm not sure about The Tab, but I suspect it's alright. I'll check to see if it's ever been discussed at WP:RSN, and if not, we can go ahead with adding some more about this. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 16:30, 6 February 2018 (UTC)
Regarding the Sputnik article, I agree its associations with the Russian Government should temper assessments of its reliability, but the article does include a video in which Yiannopoulos makes the statement attributed to him. If you are keen to avoid Sputnik the same video clip can be found here and can, I suggest, be reliably cited. On a related, but separate note, the citation regarding Yiannopoulos's comments following the 2016 Orlando nightclub shooting no longer seems to be working.Jono1011 (talk) 18:10, 6 February 2018 (UTC)
So long as the content is quotes from Milo (or summaries of things Milo said), then that video should be just fine. (Others might disagree, but we'll deal with them when they show up reverting.) As for the broken link, I'll see if there's an archived version. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 18:48, 6 February 2018 (UTC)
Fixed. For future reference, any time you find a broken link, you can copy the link address and go to https://archive.org/web/, where you can paste the address into the textbox and see if they've archived a working version. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 18:51, 6 February 2018 (UTC)
Great, thanks so much. The only other thing I could think of re: this topic concerns Yiannopoulos's attitude towards of Trump's Travel Ban, which has been viewed and labelled by some as akin to a Muslim Travel Ban. I recall that this was something that Yiannopoulos has spoken in favour of, but I'm not aware of any credible sources which show this. I'm not suggesting that this page make a determination on whether the travel ban is Islamaphobic, but if anyone is aware of remarks by Yiannopoulos on this issue, this would seem to be a good point to bring them up. Jono1011 (talk) 22:09, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

When I get home this evening I'll sit down with this section and make some more edits at the page. If you find anything about the travel ban, go ahead and drop it here. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 22:11, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

Is it possible to add this content to the article? I'm not aware of any new material to include, but I think the remarks included in the sources above merit inclusion. Jono1011 (talk) 12:10, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

What's up with the creepy picture edit?

It's quite obvious someone has injected a significantly creepy image of milo to replace the default image. The edit is here: (cur | prev) 07:32, 9 February 2018‎ Trainsandtech (talk | contribs)‎ . . (118,098 bytes) (-71)‎ . . (More professional (and slightly more up to date) image) (thank) (Tag: Visual edit)

I'm not sure an image of someone who is visibly sweating with a shirt unbuttoned is "more professional" instead the spirit of this change is an indirect snipe at Milo, which is childish. We should settle on a normal, professional image. JRockets☯ —Preceding undated comment added 21:48, 14 March 2018

Is "professionalism" a criteria for using libre media? I see three images images of Yiannopoulos in the recent edit history: File:Milo Yiannopoulos - Liverpool Street Moonwalk.jpg, File:Milo Yiannopoulos, Journalist, Broadcaster and Entrepreneur-1441 (8961808556) cropped.jpg, and File:Milo Yiannopoulos at Next14 2014 (cropped).jpg. In the approximately six years represented here, Yiannopoulos has three different "looks" (if you will). Given that, the most-recent of our available libre photos should be used. If there's any reliable-sourced precedent for the subject currently or more-regularly looking more alike one of these than another, then we should use it. — fourthords | =Λ= | 17:25, 2 April 2018 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Milo_Yiannopoulos/Archive_3&oldid=1137012731"