Talk:Milo Yiannopoulos/Archive 5

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Removing significant amounts of undue detail

I actually don't know where to begin with this article, it's busting at the seems with undue detail and reads terribly. It's been a bit of a bugbear for me as it is full of dubious sources, endless quotes and opinion...but I've struggled to figure out how to improve it and to go through it bit by bit would be more work than I have time for. It reads like supporters and detractors have been, as PraiseVivec pointed out, adding "particularly inflammatory quotes on pretty much every subject he ever mentioned" and it has indeed led to a highly "undesirable effect, in which this page has ballooned to a staggering size for someone of his profile". He is an internet troll. He is not a psephologist, a political scientist, an academic, an expert on Islam, feminism or much else to be completely honest...maybe he has some expertise regarding tech?

I've tried to summarise why I think much of it should be removed or reworded below, but there's just so much wrong with the article that I've not discussed every change. I have no intention of acting alone. I ask that editors interested in improving the article have a look at this version and discuss my suggestions/make further suggestions. I've given it a red hot go, pruning, rearranging etc.

The following are my thoughts on some sections I believe should be removed:

I started by going through the sources that I'd never heard of and removing claims that relied on student/local papers, claims that were not widely reported.

Gamergate - One of the first to cover Gamergate? Who cares? Did he break the story? If not it's undue detail, thousands of reporters covered the story.

Alt-right - He is not a psephologist or a political scientists, his personal thoughts and analysis of the movement is undue. Who cares what he thinks about a subject that he has no particular expertise in?

Career - No need to go into this much detail about his "career" as a journalist, he is not notable for this (at least not prior to Breitbart), in-fact I doubt other journalists would regard him as such, maybe a former journalist. This is undue, as demonstrated by the quality of the sources. The Gamergate info is undue, the only mainstream/major outlet to provide coverage of his opinions on the matter cited is CNN and it barely mentions Yiannopoulos.

Breitbart - The Breitbart section of his career is all over the place, should all be in one section and clearly needs further editing. His views on Israel/Palestine are from an op-ed and are completely undue, he is no expert on the issue his views were not widely reported. Taunting some random Jewish journo is undue detail. There's so much detail here, why do we need to know that the bar tender that kicked him out had support from her co workers? For example.

Protests and talks - It's completely undue to list individual events and people booing etc...unless they were widely reported. Most of these rely on minor reports in local and student papers.

Political views

Trump - Yianopolous is no psephologist, or political scientist, he is not an expert on Islam either, these long-winded sections regarding his views on subjects that he has no expertise on, basically just has an opinion about are undue. A paragraph is too much, but I can deal with that.

Islam - Milo is no expert on Islam, who cares what he said once about something he has no expertise on? The widely reported and highly offensive claims are almost alright, but the spurious quotes? We are just giving air to his views, repeating these offensive and hurtful views, they are undue. We can summerise his views, no need to expand on them.

LGBT - An obscure debate with a musician about the word "gay" is undue. We are discussing Milo's views here, no? Who cares what Kevin D. Williamson thinks about Hugo Boss making SS uniforms? An interview that was not accepted for publication and was posted to Yiannopoulos's personal website is not notable. Marshaling a tiny stunt rally is not noteworthy, we are not here to list his stupid pranks. Who cares what he said in some interview with some random church newspaper? Undue.

Glasgow University - Who cares if he was nominated for rector of Glasgow University? Was he appointed? If not this is a complete non-event, an absolute irrelevance.

Debt - As for his debt, his fundraising efforts on Patrion are obviously completely undue detail, why not mention that he got a loan from his mum and borrowed a ten bucks from his mate while we are at it?

IMO There's heaps more that should go, but this version would include much of the relevant detail and give us something we can work to improve. As it stands it is such a mess, it's hard to figure out where to start. Bacondrum (talk) 23:50, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

Regarding the lead proposed in your sandbox, it's too drastic of a cut for the size of this article. It does not adequately summarize the article. As seen at Talk:Milo Yiannopoulos/Archive 4#Due weight and lede length, we recently went over this. So I don't agree with that drastic cut. Yes, I know you want to drastically cut the size of the article, but we also went over that: Talk:Milo Yiannopoulos/Archive 4#The article is way too long for a person whom history will likely forget in a few years. I feel the same way I felt then about WP:Due weight, cutting, and notability. I agree that we shouldn't be adding any and everything about Yiannopoulos and excessive detail. This is why, as seen at Talk:Milo Yiannopoulos/Archive 4#Recent expansions, I stated, "Display name 99, I see that you've been adding material to the article. Per what has been stated above, make sure that you are not going overboard with material. The article already has lot in it, and there are WP:Due weight, WP:DIARY and WP:SIZE matters to consider with expansions. If text can be summarized without cutting out important detail, we should do that." So I am for cutting unnecessary and excessive material, but I am also for keeping in mind what WP:Preserve states.

Cutting anything that is the subject of the #RfC August 2019 discussion probably should not be done until that RfC is over. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 01:17, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

I have closed the RfC as consensus was clearly in favor of the removal of the material in question. I have taken out the paragraph on Yiannapoulos's comments on transgender people, as that formed part of the content in the RfC. I am not sure that I will have any significant role here in the future, as my ideas for what the article should look like are apparently considerably out of step with those of everyone else. But I agree with Flyer22 Reborn that at the very least caution should be used when deciding to take information out of the article. Display name 99 (talk) 15:32, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

I will add one more thing however. Removing content because you deem it "offensive and hurtful" violates Wikipedia policy with regard to neutrality and unbiased editing. Please do not do it. Display name 99 (talk) 23:32, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

If the content is "offensive and hurtful" it should be treated carefully, and only added when completely necessary. Publishing racist, homophobic, sexist and other offensive material should only be done when absolutely essential to presenting the subject views. I will be removing undue additions of hate speech as this is 100% inline with wikipedia policy: "Offensive material should be used only if its omission would cause the article to be less informative, relevant, or accurate, and no equally suitable alternative is available." WP:GRATUITOUS End of story. Bacondrum (talk) 23:49, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

You are not simply removing excessive detail. You are rearranging material. Furthermore, cutting material can be subjective, as it has been with you in the past; others, including me, have been against you cutting a lot based on your personal opinion. We have asked you to first discuss potential large deletions because others may disagree, and this article is under WP:1RR. So edit warring at this article can have consequences. I don't see that anyone agreed to your sandbox version. If there are no objections to your changes, you are in the clear, though, obviously. I've already objected to the lead version in your sandbox. And regarding this revert by me, that is another objection thus far. We have already been over this. It is consensus material. It is included because, with regard to Yiannopoulos's comments and some commentators accusing him of endorsing pedophilia, other commentators did take note of what pedophilia is and isn't.

As for your comments about WP:Offensive material, we include racist, homophobic, sexist and other offensive material when it is relevant to the topic, as it is in this case due to the substantial controversy and/or criticism. The WP:Not censored policy is tempered with the WP:Offensive material guideline. We only omit offensive material when it "would cause the article to be less informative, relevant, or accurate." Leaving out relevant and/or prominent controversy and/or criticism (which is also obviously relevant) with regard to Yiannopoulos because it may be hurtful (to Yiannopoulos or to others) is not supported by the WP:Offensive material guideline. What is supported by Wikipedia is not including excessive material on whatever matter that has received significant controversy and/or criticism. Summarizing where possible is best. Consensus, however, may determine what is or isn't excessive. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 03:22, 6 September 2019 (UTC) Updated post. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 03:31, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

You're entitled to your opinion. This is a direct quote from the guidelines: "Offensive material should be used only if its omission would cause the article to be less informative, relevant, or accurate, and no equally suitable alternative is available." Seems like a fair and reasonable standard for measuring the value of republishing anything a reasonable person would consider to be offensive material. Bacondrum (talk) 04:23, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

I'm used to endorsing and employing the WP:Offensive material guideline, usually with regard to images (which is what "no equally suitable alternative is available" more often applies to), and have weighed in on matters concerning it on its talk page. I'm informing you of how it is and isn't supposed to be used. What I stated is correct. And if you want more opinions on that matter, we can ask at the guideline's talk page. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 04:46, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

Regarding this, it seems like some Gamergate material should be in the "Women and feminism" section. Not necessarily the content you removed. We mention Gamergate in the lead because it was covered lower. And removing the section on it should not be used as an excuse to remove mention of it from the lead. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 03:45, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

Why is Gamergate mentioned at all? Did he break the story? Did he reveal something of note? Or did he just report about it, like thousands of other journalists? Bacondrum (talk) 04:08, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

This has been answered in the #Breitbart seciton below. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 22:47, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

Looking at this version of the article, it appears to me that you've cut enough. There is a little bit of material that can be summarized instead of including quotes. But you have significantly downsized the article. The goal certainly should not be what the goal was in the "The article is way too long for a person whom history will likely forget in a few years" discussion. And this is for reasons stated in that discussion. And by "goal," I obviously mean downsizing the article because of what one personally feels about Yiannopoulos's noteworthiness or relevance. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 23:25, 7 September 2019 (UTC) Updated post. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 23:33, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

Breitbart

Yiannopoulos started writing for Breitbart in 2014 - the oldest article by him currently on Breitbart is dated 28 April 2014. After his coverage on GamerGate, in October 2015 Bannon created a Breitbart Tech section and placed Yiannopoulos and Dulis in charge, but by that time Yiannopoulos had been writing for the publication for about 18 months. - Bilby (talk) 11:25, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

My mistake, thanks for the correction. Bacondrum (talk) 21:59, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

Bilby, thanks for re-adding some Gamergate material back to the article. This answers Bacondrum's following questions at the end of the #Removing significant amounts of undue detail discussion above: "Why is Gamergate mentioned at all? Did he break the story? Did he reveal something of note? Or did he just report about it, like thousands of other journalists?"

Do you think anything should be re-added about it to the lead? Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 22:47, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

I think Bilby has made the case for a paragraph in the body of the article by adding RS's/explaining why it's of some significance to his career, but it's not what he is known for more generally. I don't think it's due in the lede, it already contains too much undue detail, IMO. Bacondrum (talk) 00:35, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

One may not think it belongs in the lead now because of all the material you removed on it. Another may think it belongs in the lead, given its importance to his career and influence. The current four-paragraph lead is due. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 01:48, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

Absolutely, and one may think it belongs in the lead. Another may not think it belongs in the lead, given its lack of importance to his career and influence. I disagree that all the detail in the four-paragraph lead is due. Bacondrum (talk) 05:47, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

Given what the article states about the Gamergate aspect with regard to Yiannopoulos's career and his influence on Gamergate, how do you figure that it lacks importance to his career and influence? I've addressed the lead matter before, including in the #The lede section above. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 01:13, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

Because it's a footnote in his career. It's barely justified in the article. Bacondrum (talk) 22:13, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

The lede

So, working toward lifting this to a B-class article (or better). looking at the content assessment criteria I think the problems with this article are reasonably clear. I don't believe this article is still missing important content, the problem is that it contains too much irrelevant material. The article has references to reliable sources, but still has some problems and requires substantial cleanup. It has some gaps, needs editing for clarity and flow. It also contains policy violations in the form of undue detail and original research.

The body of the article has been cleaned up, still needs more cleaning, but I'm not willing to cut much more without input from other editors.

Can we start by addressing the lede? I accept that I may have gone a bit hard on pruning it, but I believe some of the detail is undue in the lede and should be left to the body of the article.

My thoughts on removing undue detail from the lede (parts I propose deleting are in bold):

Milo Yiannopoulos (/jəˈnɒpələs/; born Milo Hanrahan, 18 October 1984), or pen name Milo Andreas Wagner, is a British far-right political commentator, polemicist, public speaker, and writer _{I beleive this is too long winded, delete and replace with "provocateur" - most RS refer to him as a provocateur or a troll (this covers his commentary, polemics, public speaking, and writing)}. Yiannopoulos is a former editor for Breitbart News who describes himself as a "cultural libertarian". Through his speeches and writings, he ridicules Islam, feminism, social justice, and political correctness. Leaked emails have shown that Yiannopoulous's book, Dangerous, and many of his Breitbart articles were ghost-written by a Breitbart colleague.

Yiannopoulos worked for Breitbart from 2015 until 2017. In July 2016, _{I believe this should be cut, no need to mention that he worked for Breitbart twice, it's already mentioned in the first paragraph.} he was permanently banned from Twitter for harassment. He was permanently banned from Facebook in 2019. _{This could be merged into the first para (prose needs improving}

According to hundreds of emails by Yiannopoulous _{clunky prose} leaked by Buzzfeed in late 2017, Yiannopoulos repeatedly solicited white nationalists, such as American Renaissance editor Devin Saucier, _{we can discuss the particular white nationalists he worked with in the body of the article, this is undue detail for the lede, IMO} for story ideas and editing suggestions during his tenure at Breitbart. The emails show that this was an effort to appeal to a racist readership through dog-whistling. _{While I personally agree that the subject is a dog-whistling racist, this doesn't sound encyclopedic, reads like opinion and it's uncited}

Yiannopoulos has been accused of being an apologist for or supporting _{This needs to be cleared up, is he an appologist or a supporter? Sounds weird - clunky prose} paedophilia. The allegation arose from several video clips 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. Following the release of the video, Yiannopoulos was forced out of his position at Breitbart, his invitation to speak before the Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC) was revoked, and a contract to publish his autobiography with Simon & Schuster was cancelled. Yiannopoulos has said that he is not a supporter of paedophilic relationships and that his statements were merely attempts to cope with his own victimhood, as an object of child abuse by unnamed older men. _{This is undue in the lede, this level of detail should be gone into in the body of the article}

So, I'd be interested to hear from other editors on improving the lede. Cheers Bacondrum (talk) 23:43, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

Like I stated to you before, the pedophilia/child sexual abuse stuff is prominent, as made clear by the section on it the article. Like the lead states, "following the release of the video, Yiannopoulos was forced out of his position at Breitbart, his invitation to speak before the Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC) was revoked, and a contract to publish his autobiography with Simon & Schuster was cancelled." That is a huge impact. The matter is without a doubt the most controversial and prominent matter regarding him at this point in time. It cost him his job. All of that is why it deserves a spot in the lead as opposed to most of his other controversies. And per WP:Lead, his controversies should be summarized in the lead. The most significant ones anyway.

And like I stated of reverting you here, "we also obviously should not simply state that the was accused of supporting pedophilia and child sexual abuse without including his statement on the matter. This a BLP."

I have nothing else to state on the matter. Follow WP:Lead appropriately. This article's length is in accordance with its size. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 00:06, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

Fair enough, I disagree though. The lede should summarise and not go into so much detail, that should be saved for the body, as per MOS:INTRO. I can see the value of a bit more detail than I'm suggesting in the paedo bit, but the article is classed as a C for a number of reasons that need addressing - clunky prose and undue detail are obvious problems with the article, IMO Bacondrum (talk) 00:13, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

Perhaps something like this: "Yiannopoulos has been accused of being an apologist for paedophilia. The allegation arose from several video clips 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. Following the release of the video, Yiannopoulos was forced out of his position at Breitbart and a number of speaking and publishing contracts were cancelled." Bacondrum (talk) 00:20, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

The lead, per WP:Lead, is supposed to "summarize the most important points, including any prominent controversies." Given the fallout from the "pedophilia/child sexual abuse" aspect and the size of the "Remarks on paedophilia and child sexual abuse" section, what is currently in the lead on the matter should be there. As for your latest proposal for that content, I would support it if it mentioned that "Yiannopoulos has said that he is not a supporter of paedophilic relationships and that his statements were merely attempts to cope with his own victimhood, as an object of child abuse by unnamed older men." Why do you think that we shouldn't include his statement that he's not a supporter of pedophilic relationships and why he says he made the comments? Per WP:BLP, it should be there. We shouldn't leave the accusation there unchallenged. WP:Lead also states, "As in the body of the article itself, the emphasis given to material in the lead should roughly reflect its importance to the topic, according to reliable, published sources." It also has a MOS:LEADLENGTH section that can be helpful. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 00:29, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

Fair enough, You're correct, I think his attempts to blame his remarks on vague unverified/unproven claims that he was abused are undue in the lede though. The paragraph could be reduced to: "Yiannopoulos has been accused of being an apologist for paedophilia. The allegation arose from several video clips 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. Following the release of the video, Yiannopoulos was forced out of his position at Breitbart and a number of speaking and publishing contracts were cancelled. Yiannopoulos has said that he is not a supporter of paedophilic relationships." Also, verifiable is informed by many other guidelines including, but not limited to WP:UNDUE and vice versa, content must be due and verifiable, not just one or the other. Bacondrum (talk) 01:20, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

I appreciate that your latest proposal is a compromise with regard to Yiannopoulos's response, but the "and [says] that his statements were merely attempts to cope with his own victimhood, as an object of child abuse by unnamed older men" does seem due to me in a BLP context because he's explaining himself. Whether editors or readers believe him is irrelevant. It's covered in detail below and the lead should adequately summarize the "pedophilia/child sexual abuse" matter. We can wait and see if anyone else weighs in on this. I agree with how you have changed the wording for that paragraph. I just disagree with not including all of the "Yiannopoulos's response" sentence. As for people saying that they were sexually abused, there often is not evidence that the abuse took place. It's partly why the Me Too movement is so powerful -- because people decided to believe those who say they are victims. Furthermore, false allegation of child sexual abuse is rare, especially when coming from the person who says they were abused. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 03:29, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

I agree that his defence should be in the lead but would amend "that his statements were attempts to cope with his own sexual abuse as a child." which is briefer and summarises the para in the body. Nedrutland (talk) 09:05, 8 September 2019‎ (UTC)

Nedrutland, are you saying that you would change it to "Yiannopoulos has said that he is not a supporter of paedophilic relationships and that his statements were attempts to cope with his own sexual abuse as a child."? If so, I can support that, although I think that the "older men" aspect is relevant. We should definitely retain "Yiannopoulos has said that he is not a supporter of paedophilic relationships." I don't think that the entire sentence should be shortened to just "Yiannopoulos said his statements were attempts to cope with his own sexual abuse as a child." No need to ping me if you reply. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 22:34, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

Correct Nedrutland (talk) 18:18, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

For the record, I believe women and I believe survivors. It is not fair to equate a habitual liar like Yiannopoulos' desperate backpedaling from claims that it's okay to sexually abuse children to legitimate claims about abuse - they are not the same. I support Nedrutland's or my own version. He has denied he supports paedophelia, 'nuff said...no need to go into the detail of his backpedaling which is an insult to survivors, IMO. Verifiable claims matter, and the veracity matters tens times more when the subject is a proven habitual liar who has repeatedly claimed that child sex abuse is perfectly fine and claimed he can't stop himself from making fun of rape survivors. Mentioning that he backpedaled is enough for the lede, if people want to read his excuses for the vile things he has said then it's in the body of the article. Bacondrum (talk) 21:54, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

At the end of the day, he is a pathological liar. I wouldn't be surprised if we find out down the track that he is a protestant heterosexual with no Greek ancestry. He is completely unreliable and therefor any claim he makes needs to be either verified or taken with a grain of salt. Bacondrum (talk) 22:46, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

Keep in mind that this is a BLP. So, per WP:BLP, comments like "a habitual liar like Yiannopoulos," "desperate backpedaling from claims" and "he is a pathological liar," and other derogatory personal opinions on Yiannopoulos, should be avoided. As for "an insult to survivors," some survivors of child sexual abuse, especially male survivors of child sexual abuse, have tried to downplay such harm, whether with regard to themselves and/or others. So Yiannopoulos's claim that his "statements were merely attempts to cope with his own victimhood, as an object of child abuse by unnamed older men" does align with that. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 01:13, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

Yes, except Yiannopoulos has lied repeatedly about his past and his claims are not verifiable. He only made the claims after getting fired and losing millions of dollars worth of contracts for indefensible comments regarding child abuse. He has mocked survivors in the past and all other arguments aside, it's an unverifiable claim. I'll be more careful about the language I use in the future. Bacondrum (talk) 21:55, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

And as for the cutting of the article, I was clear above that although there is a little bit of material that can be summarized instead of including quotes, I feel that you have cut enough. I'm not sure what undue detail and original research you are speaking of. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 00:29, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

Fair enough, that's why I'm here discussing changes. Once we are done with the lede, I'll move onto discussing the original research and excess quotes, detail etc. This article is a C-class which means it need significant improvements. Bacondrum (talk) 01:20, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

You have significantly improved it, and it does seem to live up to C-class. But I'm willing to listen to what other cuts you are aiming for and what WP:OR you are speaking of. I just ask that you propose the cuts here on the talk page first. There is no rush, and you've already significantly downsized the article. I'm fine with you summarizing quoted material without discussion.

On a side note: Per WP:TPO, be careful about breaking up a comment. I duplicated my signature above so that it's clear that I made that comment. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 03:29, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

And regarding this, it might be best to note there that the article is under discretionary sanctions. Given that it's under discretionary sanctions and the recent discussions on this talk page, it doesn't seem like it's an article you should have listed at Wikipedia:Today's articles for improvement/Nominations. See what Wikipedia:Today's articles for improvement/Nominations#Instructions says about controversy. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 03:48, 8 September 2019 (UTC) Updated post. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 04:02, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

Hey, sorry I didn't mean to break up the comment, my mistake. Yes, I will discuss any other changes and I'm glad we are working together rather than fighting, I hope you can see that I've learnt from past mistakes. I know it's been controversial, but as Yiannopolous' public profile has fizzed out I feel like the debate around him has too, I just thought it would be good to get some fresh eyes on the article, it's only a nomination after all and may well be disregarded, but worth a try. The article gets a lot of traffic and it is lacking in many regards, I'd like to at least improve it to a B-class article level. Bacondrum (talk) 08:02, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

Whether or not Yiannopolous is as talked about as he was before, he's still a controversial figure. That will never die. This article is still a controversial topic as a result. And even today, editors are still having disagreements about what to include in the article, how to include it, and how much to cut. So I don't think this article should have been listed at Wikipedia:Today's articles for improvement/Nominations. It cautious against listing articles like these for a reason. But, yeah, we can see what happens with the nomination.

I also appreciate that we are working together. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 22:34, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

Once again, there is an unsubstantiated claim (lede) that Milo was abused as a child (playing victim card), and he recently supported convicted pedophile cardinal George Pell who abused little boys. How sick is that? He lied many times about his family, birth place, education, wealth, friends...there are no witnesses, evidence, etc. Can you find such biased, unsubstantiated, "controversial" claims in Encyclopedia Britannica, Larousse? Moelscene (talk) 06:22, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

Yes, I agree. He has lied repeatedly about his past, as such any claims he makes need to be verified by a reliable secondary source. He has demonstrated repeatedly that he cannot be taken on his word - Yiannopoulos is essentially an unreliable source. Bacondrum (talk) 06:30, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

Keep in mind that this is a BLP. So, per WP:BLP, comments like "he's playing the victim card" and other derogatory personal opinions from editors about Yiannopoulos on this talk page should be avoided. If we are discussing what reliable sources have stated about him, that's different. And to repeat what I stated above, "Whether editors or readers believe him is irrelevant. It's covered in detail below and the lead should adequately summarize the 'pedophilia/child sexual abuse' matter. [...] As for people saying that they were sexually abused, there often is not evidence that the abuse took place. It's partly why the Me Too movement is so powerful -- because people decided to believe those who say they are victims. Furthermore, false allegation of child sexual abuse is rare, especially when coming from the person who says they were abused." Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 01:13, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

Yes, except this is a man who has repeatedly mocked rape and abuse survivors, including claiming he can't help but make fun of rape survivors. And only made his own claims when defending indefensible statements and losing millions in contracts and future earnings as a result. I believe it is reasonable to question his claims and motives in light of his behavior. The claims are unverifiable. Bacondrum (talk) 22:00, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

As for "Playing the victim", I didn't use those words, but reliable sources have described his behavior as such like this and this and at least another dozen articles. Bacondrum (talk) 00:12, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

Yiannopoulos defends convicted pedophile cardinal George Pell, but Flyer22 Reborn constantly wants to find excuses for his toxic behavior, that he was a sexual abuse victim as a teenager. He called Harvey Weinstein's accusers a greedy sluts, liars, misandrists. He supported Brigitte Bardot, Catherine Deneuve (she retracted her statements after the backlash) when they attacked #meetoo movement. He is sexual abuse apologist and was (is) a member of Proud Boys, self proclaimed male chauvinists (they participated in "Straight Pride" in Boston). He frequently collaborated with Gavin McInnes, rape apologist Mike Cernovich. Moelscene (talk) 11:29, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

Moelscene, keep stating things like "Flyer22 Reborn constantly wants to find excuses for his toxic behavior," and I will report you for thinly-veiled personal attacks. Whatever odd notion you have of me being some apologist is absurd. My record here at Wikipedia on child sexual abuse, statutory rape and topics such as pedophilia speaks for itself. I do not need to justify myself to you. I'm also quite certain that you don't know what pedophilia actually is. Indeed, I got involved with this article because of all the laypeople talk about pedophilia. But that is the beside the point. This is a BLP. It matters not if an editor thinks Yiannopoulos is lying. We are supposed to provide his defense with regard to allegations, and not just a piece of it that we find acceptable. If Yiannopoulos were convicted of child sexual abuse or statutory rape or found to possess child pornography, things would be different. But he is not a convicted child sexual abuser or statutory rapist. Nor has he been found to possess child pornography. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 22:21, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

Banned from a Furry Con - due?

I'm sure many people here know that Yiannopoulos can now add Midwest Furfest to the list of places he's not welcome. There are plenty of reliable sources for this incident. My question, and why I came here first before editing: is this WP:DUE? Or would this just end up WP:RECENTISM and WP:CRUFT? Thoughts? Simonm223 (talk) 13:00, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

As much as I personally love this story, I still don't feel like it passes the WP:10YT - it was an attempt at a publicity stunt that failed. At best, it might be on par with his participation in the "straight pride parade", which netted a one sentence mention. Nblund ^talk 13:25, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

Fair. Like I said, I was on the fence about this one myself. But it did amuse me greatly. Simonm223 (talk) 14:54, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

True, if I had my way we'd have it on the entry for schadenfreude. It might be DUE for the entry on Midwest Furfest. Nblund ^talk 19:48, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

Though entertaining, its not WP:DUE. Meatsgains^(talk) 21:09, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

NPOV/BIAS in lead

The lead describes Milo as "Far Right" and uses left wing sources like "The Guardian" to back up this claim, "The Guardian" should not be a reliable source for anything. Anyway because some in the press have labeled him as "Far Right" does not mean he is "Far Right". Using more neutral language like "He has been described by some media outlets as being far right in his political views" would be more appropriate. At the moment the article reads as a hit piece and is clearly not neutral. Kind Regards, J 80.0.45.128 (talk) 04:37, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

You are misunderstanding WP:NEUTRAL. Wikipedia does not intend to provide a toned down version of what sources say. Wikipedia aims to neutrally report what independent reliable sources say. If independent reliable sources said he is a cheerful guy, fostering injured puppies until they are ready for adoption and tending neighborhood gardens for his elderly neighbors, that's what Wikipedia would say. If independent reliable sources said he is a cheese sandwich, that is what Wikipedia would say. Independent reliable sources say he is a far-right political commentator, polemicist, public speaker, and writer, so that's what Wikipedia says. - SummerPhD^v2.0 18:43, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

Which is why I pointed out "The Guardian" is not an independent reliable source, it is a left wing rag with inherent bias, The other sources are fine though.80.0.45.128 (talk) 23:21, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

According to who? The Guardian is a perfectly fine source.- MrX 🖋 23:57, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

"The Guardian" has been a left wing mouth piece since it's inception along with it's sister publication "The Observer" it's articles use wording and language with inherent bias for left wing causes and should not be trusted. It's op-ed pieces are often Anti-Semetic. If you are trying to say that this rag is a RS for Wikipedia then an detailed RFC on it's reliabillity needs to be held.80.0.45.128 (talk) 00:20, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

Then go to WP:RSN. But it's not like it's never been brought up before ([1]). EvergreenFir (talk) 00:26, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

As WP:RS/P details, "There is consensus that The Guardian is generally reliable. The Guardian's op-eds should be handled with WP:RSOPINION." - SummerPhD^v2.0 00:43, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

The IP has taken this to WP:RSN and it is being discussed there. So far, the trend is distinctly in favor the the existing consensus that The Guardian is a reliable source. - SummerPhD^v2.0 16:31, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

Slight change of details.

the following paragraph in the lede seems inappropriate (not that I am a huge fan of Milo tbh)

"The emails show that this was an effort to appeal to a racist readership through dog-whistling."

this is quite a subjective opinion. and goes into analysis. even if it is in a source. but no source is linked to this. unless it is the view of the buzzfeed link. But again, Buzzfeed analysis is a RS? even when its analysis rather than facts? Jazi Zilber (talk) 21:40, 26 October 2019 (UTC)

Alt-right

There aren't currently any useful sources cited as to whether or not he is a part of the alt-right, out of the three sources, one is an error, one admits that he doesn't believe in the "core tenets" of the alt-right, and the third one doesn't provide any evidence that he is a part of the alt-right, other than saying that he is "regularly associated" with it. The section titled "Association with Neo-Nazism and the alt-right" actually provides evidence that he is not a part of the movement, such as him calling it "Dangerously bright", and the fact that he has been criticised by The Daily Stormer. Whether or not you believe that he is a part of the alt-right, the claim has no place here without proper evidence to support it. Callumpenguin (talk) 22:54, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

Reliable sources calling him part of the Alt-Right is sufficient for us to do so ourselves. I'm not sure what you mean by "doesn't provide any evidence"; our job isn't to play amateur sleuth and perform original research using sources, it's to go by what they say. One calls him the face of the alt-right; one calls him an alt-right writer and provocateur. I've added two more - beyond that, I'm not sure what you're requesting. It's a political categorization, so in deciding when it applies, we look at how the sources use it; and they seem to generally describe him that way. --Aquillion (talk) 08:47, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

It seems to be more of a political group/movement than a categorization, and someone's claim that they are not a part of a group is more than enough to prove that they aren't unless there is concrete evidence pointing to them being a part of it Callumpenguin (talk) 09:39, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure you've misunderstood how sourcing works on Wikipedia - David Gerard (talk) 11:29, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure that unless you have actual irrefutable evidence, then its within someone's power to dispute your claim Callumpenguin (talk) 13:03, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

I think your standards of evidence are - demonstrably - at odds with Wikipedia sourcing - David Gerard (talk) 13:05, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

Whether or not that is true isn't the point, if someone was looking for evidence that he is actually a part of the alt-right, then they clearly wouldn't find it here, there is actually evidence against it further down on the article where it mentions that he calls the alt right Dangerously bright, and mentions that he has been heavily criticised by The Daily Stormer, an actual alt-right website Callumpenguin (talk) 13:09, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia does not aim to provide "evidence" that Yiannopoulos is or isn't anything. Our aim to provide what independent reliable sources say about him. That's called "verifiability" and it is one of the pillars of the project. If independent reliable sources say he is alt-right, Wikipedia says he is alt-right. If independent reliable sources said he is a cheese sandwich, Wikipedia would say he is a cheese sandwich. That he says he isn't alt-right, is not a cheese sandwich and/or wants all the children of the world to join hands and sing in peace and harmony is irrelevant. Similarly, we don't discuss the "evidence" for/against the Earth being round/flat, HIV causing AIDS, whether or not there was a Bowling Green Massacre, etc. Instead, we report what independent reliable sources say. - SummerPhD^v2.0 19:44, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

So we could go to David Duke and remove the neo-Nazi and antisemite characterizations, since Duke himself claims he simply supports traditionalist christian values? Zaathras (talk) 12:57, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

No, that is because those are actual beliefs, that he has shown to have, being a part of the alt-right isn't just about believing something, it is a group, and even if it was about what someone believed, Milo has demonstrated numerous times that he does not believe in those things Callumpenguin (talk) 13:03, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

Incorrect. We do NOT know what his beliefs are. You selecting definitions for "neo-Nazi" and "anti-Semite" and comparing those definitions to your interpretations of his apparent beliefs is original research. While that's certainly a reasonable part of writing elsewhere (from your personal blog to a peer-reviewed article), it simply is not how Wikipedia works. Wikipedia reports what independent reliable sources say, not what Callumpenguin thinks is true. - SummerPhD^v2.0 19:44, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

Yes, we do, it is his opinion, that means that no matter what any other source says, he is the only truly reliable source for his own beliefs, sources such as the BBC, Bloomberg, Buzzfeed news, and USA TODAY are absolutely reliable sources for current events and news, but not necessarily opinions other than those of the authors of articles on those sites, in the same way that sources that are generally not reliable sources for current events and news are absolutely reliable sources for the opinions of the authors. I mean seriously, one of the main beliefs of the alt-right is white supremacy, and i didn't really want to bring it up but his husband is black, and although vulgar, he does talk a lot about how he "loves to suck black cock" Callumpenguin (talk) 18:05, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

We know what he says he believes. He's also said that he is both gay and anti-gay.

We do NOT have articles about subjects written by the subjects. If we did, our article on the Proud Boys would say they are a group of guys whe drink beef together and do community service projects. We do not say that. Instead, we report what independent reliable sources say.

Independent reliable sources say he is alt-right so Wikipedia verifiably says that he is alt-right.

If you wish to challenge any of the sources, you will need to explain how they either do not say he is alt-right (hint: they do) or establish that the sources do not meet the criteria outlined at WP:IRS (hint: they do). Please explain if you wish to try either of these.

You cannot take a definition of "alt-right" (or anything else), compare it against facts or statements and decide that the subject is or is not alt-right, gay, a cheese sandwich, etc. Independent reliable sources say the subject is alt-right. To say otherwise, you would need independent reliable sources directly stating he is not alt-right. Sources connected to Yiannopoulos are not independent. Qualifications for reliable sources are outlined at WP:IRS. If you believe you have such sources, feel free to explain it here. - SummerPhD^v2.0 20:26, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

"an African-American man"

• diff

This is at best a bit of celebrity gossip. Besides not being explicitly covered in either of the cited sources, it is admittedly covered elsewhere in some decidedly tabloid reporting (oh look). The source for the entire thing seems to be a few pictures that Yiannopoulos posted on instagram. And somehow, we've now decided that Yiannopoulos is someone we can trust about "facts"? No way could that ever be a self-serving self-published factoid, turned into the gay version of "I have a black friend"...Oh wait, the alt-right isn't racist and homophobic because Yiannopoulos is a "gay Jew [with] a black boyfriend". Of course.

Assuming the photos are authentic, and there's no special reason to believe that they are, the tabloids are literally just looking at the photos and drawing their own conclusions. How exactly do we know that this person isn't a black Brazilian who speaks Portuguese as his mother tongue? Well, we don't. At least some sources are candid about this. GMG^talk 18:43, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

Ok then, change it to black instead of African-American, and it isn't just going on what tabloids say, he has spent an incredible amount of time talking about how he "Sucks black dick", and if you want to debate the exact ethnicity of his husband go ahead (and he has supposedly said that his husband is also Muslim but that is also not relevant) , but it is in no way the gay version of "I have a black friend", he has talked about his opinions on black people before, and if you want to make this about something else other than his husband's ethnicity then go ahead, but Wikipedia isn't the place for that Callumpenguin (talk) 20:54, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia is also not the place to rehash tabloids, especially not tabloids that themselves rehash original interpretations of photos self-published by a completely unreliable source. Yiannopoulos can say that his husband is Gabriel reincarnated for all I care. GMG^talk 21:02, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

I agree with GMG 100%. Why is his husbands ethnicity even mentioned? If he married a white guy no one would mention his ethnicity. It's irrelevant other than to say "I have a black friend". We're not here to regurgitate racist proclamations about sucking anything (a racist and vile comment that shouldn't be repeated here), by a racist that aims to absolve the racist of being racist. Bacondrum (talk) 21:03, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

Go ahead, delete it, but seriously, people on here just seem to jump at any opportunity to say remove anything that doesn't say that he's a white supremacist Callumpenguin (talk) 08:46, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia does not aim to tell readers everything that might be true about a subject. This is an issue of WP:WEIGHT. - SummerPhD^v2.0 11:45, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

(edit conflict) The only broad matters of principle I'm concerned with are reliable sourcing and consistent editorial standards. That Yiannopoulos has been accused of racism does not constitute justification to house poorly sourced information of the type we would not include under normal circumstances. We certainly don't do so in a way that means we ourselves give a tacit endorsement to the essientialism of race. That is, after all, the core undermining factor in the "I have a black friend" argument: besides presuming people won't tolerate contradictory beliefs and actions, which we do easily and often, it relies on an implicit agreement on the primacy of race itself in determining class structure. Those may be assumptions Wikipedia observes when appropriate, but they are not assumptions we make implicitly or explicitly in what we write and how we write it. GMG^talk 12:46, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 15 November 2019

Change Milo Yiannopoulos' political alignments to right-wing.

Milo Yiannopoulos is not far-right and further is not associated with the alt-right. In his book, there is an entire chapter titled "Why the Alt-Right Hates me" where he ridiculed white supremacists and Neo-Nazis at length. Its matilda (talk) 10:06, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

Not done - Wikipedia reports what independent reliable sources say about a subject.

Yiannopoulos is not an independent source for information about himself. Yiannopoulos is not a reliable source for information about anything.

Multiple independent reliable sources cited in the article say that he is far-right, so Wikipedia says that he is far-right.

Please do not edit others' comments on this talk page, as you did here. Additionally, please note that direct quotes must say what the source says and may not be "corrected", whether you feel they are correct or not. - SummerPhD^v2.0 12:35, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

Milo denies that "Dangerous" was ghostwritten

"Dangerous" is obviously written by Milo. It is written in the same style he speaks in. Nevertheless, it is not his best writing. He addresses this at 1:57 in this interview: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LAiGoWnsVXE — Preceding unsigned comment added by Myatrrcc (talk • contribs) 06:03, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

Update Website URL

Please update the webiste to https://milo.net/. He has moved his website content to https://milo.net/ after selling the dangerous.com domain — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.197.159.34 (talk) 15:45, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

References

Disappointed to see my edits all reverted

I made a series of edits the other day only to see all of them reverted. For example, this article tries to imply that Milo's book "Dangerous" is ghostwritten based on a single sentence from a Buzzfeed that was not documented in any way. Anyone who has actually read the book can attest to the fact that this is obviously not true. The book is written in the same style that Milo talks in. At bare minimum, it should be mentioned that this allegation is based on a Buzzfeed article. After all, Buzzfeed is not exactly the most reputable source. Furthermore, I linked to an interview in which Milo denies these allegations. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Myatrrcc (talk • contribs) 04:59, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

Holy Mackerel

This article reads like a diatribe. A "hit piece," basically. I'm more than prepared to believe he deserves every last bit of it and then some, but seriously? There have got to be as many reasons he is liked by many who aren't (known) alt-right or KKK. No? Just putting it out there. If Wikipedia aspires to be, well, Wikipedia, I'm not sure an article such as this helps. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.29.63.96 (talk) 04:15, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

Couldn't agree more, I've been arguing the case for ages. Heaps of undue detail aimed at presenting the fella in the worst possible light. I also am not a fan, but this article is a shocker. Bacondrum (talk) 07:01, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

Independent reliable sources have a lot to say about the subject. Most of it isn't material most people would want written about them. That doesn't mean the material is any less accurate. Wikipedia reports what independent reliable sources say about a subject. Sometimes it isn't pretty.

If you feel there are sources used that aren't reliable, please point them out specifically.

If you feel there is material that is given too much WP:WEIGHT, please point it out.

If you feel there is material that does not accurately reflect what the source says about the subject, please point it out.

If you feel there is complementary material on the subject in independent reliable sources, please point it out.

If you feel we should present "both sides" equally, please see WP:FALSEBALANCE. - SummerPhD^v2.0 12:36, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

RFC - Improving the lede

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 interested in improving the lede, but there's been a fair bit of argy bargy around this subject, so I would like feedback from other editors interested in improving the article through consensus. Bacondrum (talk) 01:11, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

The current lede contains clunky prose, a lot of WP:RECENT and WP:UNDUE detail as per WP:LEAD, in my opinion.

I propose changing the lede from this (A):

Milo Yiannopoulos (/jəˈnɒpələs/;born Milo Hanrahan, 18 October 1984), or pen name Milo Andreas Wagner, is a British far-right political commentator, polemicist, public speaker, and writer. Yiannopoulos is a former editor for Breitbart News who describes himself as a "cultural libertarian". Through his speeches and writings, he ridicules Islam, feminism, social justice, and political correctness. Leaked emails have shown that Yiannopoulous's book, Dangerous, and many of his Breitbart articles were ghost-written by a Breitbart colleague.

Yiannopoulos worked for Breitbart from 2014 until 2017. During his time at Beitbart Yiannopoulos rose to prominence as a significant voice in the Gamergate controversy. In July 2016, he was permanently banned from Twitter for harassment. He was permanently banned from Facebook in 2019.

According to hundreds of emails by Yiannopoulous leaked by Buzzfeed in late 2017, Yiannopoulos repeatedly solicited white nationalists, such as American Renaissance editor Devin Saucier, for story ideas and editing suggestions during his tenure at Breitbart. The emails show that this was an effort to appeal to a racist readership through dog-whistling.

Yiannopoulos has been accused of being an apologist for or supporting paedophilia. The allegation arose from several video clips 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. Following the release of the video, Yiannopoulos was forced out of his position at Breitbart, his invitation to speak before the Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC) was revoked, and a contract to publish his autobiography with Simon & Schuster was cancelled. Yiannopoulos has said that he is not a supporter of paedophilic relationships and that his statements were merely attempts to cope with his own victimhood, as an object of child abuse by unnamed older men.

To this (option B):

Milo Yiannopoulos (/jəˈnɒpələs/; born Milo Hanrahan, 18 October 1984), also known by the pen name Milo Andreas Wagner, is a British far-right provocateur. Yiannopoulos is a former editor for Breitbart News who describes himself as a "cultural libertarian". Through his speeches and writings, he ridicules Islam, feminism, social justice, and political correctness.

Yiannopoulos worked for Breitbart from 2014 until 2017. During his time at Beitbart Yiannopoulos rose to prominence as a significant voice in the Gamergate controversy. According to hundreds of emails leaked by Buzzfeed in late 2017, Yiannopoulos repeatedly solicited white nationalists for story ideas and editing suggestions during his tenure at Breitbart. Leaked emails have shown that Yiannopoulous's book, Dangerous, and many of his Breitbart articles were ghost-written by a Breitbart colleague.

In July 2016, Yiannopoulos was permanently banned from Twitter for harassment, he was permanently banned from Facebook in 2019.

Yiannopoulos has been accused of being an apologist for paedophilia. The allegation arose from several video clips 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. Following the release of the video, Yiannopoulos was forced out of his position at Breitbart and a number of speaking and publishing contracts were cancelled. Yiannopoulos has said that he is not a supporter of paedophilic relationships.

Reasoning for changes:

• "or pen name Milo Andreas Wagner" sounds clunky should be reworded to "also known by the pen name"
• I believe "political commentator, polemicist, public speaker, and writer" is too long winded and vague, delete and replace with "provocateur" or "troll" - most RS refer to him as a provocateur or a troll (this covers his journalism, commentary, polemics, public speaking, and writing). He describes himself as a "troll".
• I believe all details about Breitbart should be in one paragraph, it's messy as is.
• "Yiannopoulos worked for Breitbart from 2014 until 2017. During his time at Beitbart Yiannopoulos rose to prominence as a significant voice in the Gamergate controversy. In July 2016, he was permanently banned from Twitter for harassment. He was permanently banned from Facebook in 2019." Why are Gamergate (which is part of his career at Breitbart, not part of a paragraph dedicated to Breitbart and why is his social media ban in this paragraph, they're not related.
• Clunky prose "According to hundreds of emails by Yiannopoulous leaked by Buzzfeed in late 2017" should be rephrased
• "such as American Renaissance editor Devin Saucier" should go, we can discuss the particular white nationalists he worked with in the body of the article, he worked with a number of them this is undue detail for the lede
• "for story ideas and editing suggestions during his tenure at Breitbart." Should be part of the Breitbart paragraph.
• This is opinion/original research "The emails show that this was an effort to appeal to a racist readership through dog-whistling." and must be removed. While I personally agree with the assertion, this doesn't sound encyclopedic, is an opinion and it's uncited.
• "Yiannopoulos has been accused of being an apologist for or supporting" This needs to be cleared up, is he an apologist or a supporter? Sounds weird - clunky prose
• Much of the last paragraph is undue detail, who cancelled contract, details of his attempts explain his child abuse comments can be found in the body, the lede is supposed to summerise.

All with relevant citations retained or improved, of course. Thanks in advance. Bacondrum (talk) 01:11, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

• Support proposed text as much more concise, sharper, and focusing on WP:DUE statements. — JFG ^talk 11:26, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

"In July 2016, Yiannopoulos was permanently banned from Twitter for harassment, he was permanently banned from Facebook in 2019." I object to the repetition of 'permanently' and doubt if it needs to be used even once (to me, a ban is permanent; if it were temporary, it would be a suspension). I suggest "Yiannopoulos was banned from Twitter in July 2016 for harassment, and from Facebook in 2019."

Similarly amend "Yiannopoulos worked for Breitbart from 2014 until 2017. During his time at Beitbart Yiannopoulos rose to prominence as a significant voice in the Gamergate controversy." to "Yiannopoulos worked for Breitbart from 2014 until 2017. During his time there, he ..." Nedrutland (talk) 12:53, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

100% in agreement with those suggestions. Thanks Bacondrum (talk) 21:25, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

• Support with one suggestion Let's retain such as American Renaissance editor Devin Saucier, and otherwise it's fine. Simonm223 (talk) 12:57, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

Alright, we'll retain that. Bacondrum (talk) 21:30, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose both. I have made a post [2] at WP:BLPN raising my concern that the current and proposed leads do not approach this BLP in a professional manner. As I pointed out in my BLPN post, our lead for Donald Trump — who has politics very similar to Yiannopoulos — is by contrast restrained. And our article for Rocky Suhayda, the leader of the American Nazi Party and someone who is significantly closer to (indeed, is himself) the extreme right, is also restrained. It is inappropriate to have a lead that consists, paragraph by paragraph, of (1) ridicule, plagiarism, (2) harassment, banning, (3) racism, dog-whistling, (4) and paedophilia. Why is Yiannopoulos so popular? What is "his side?" You really get no idea of this from reading the lead of this article. Whatever you think about Yiannopoulos — and I don't think much — this is a shameful way to approach a biography. @Bacondrum, Flyer22 Reborn, Simonm223, JFG, and Nedrutland: and Markbassett. -Darouet (talk) 22:03, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

@Darouet: I don't necessarily disagree. What do you propose as an alternative?

• Oppose removal of "and that his statements were merely attempts to cope with his own victimhood, as an object of child abuse by unnamed older men.". This is for reasons I mentioned in the #The lede section above. In that section, Nedrutland also supported retaining the content. Nedrutland, is this still the case? Bacondrum has dropped that disputed aspect into this RfC which includes actual proposed improvements and therefore muddies things. Yes, the lead is supposed to summarize. The "Yiannopoulos has said that he is not a supporter of paedophilic relationships" piece is only summarizing that aspect of his statement. The above proposal is deliberately leaving out a significant aspect of his response to the allegation. And, in the "The lede" discussion, Bacondrum has provided his personal feelings as to why he wants that piece out of the lead. It has nothing to do with summarizing. This is a BLP. It matters not if an editor thinks Yiannopoulos is lying. We are supposed to provide his defense with regard to allegations, and not just a piece of it that we find acceptable. If Yiannopoulos were convicted of child sexual abuse or statutory rape or found to possess child pornography, things would be different. But he is not a convicted child sexual abuser or statutory rapist. Nor has he been found to possess child pornography. I was going to state "Support except for the removal of 'and that his statements were merely attempts to cope with his own victimhood, as an object of child abuse by unnamed older men'.", but Darouet has made me consider that although the fact that Yiannopoulos is controversial and controversial aspects should be covered in the lead, there may be more that should be in the lead as well. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 22:21, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

Details of his explanation for those comments are in the body of the article. My proposal isn't hard and fast, we are discussing the changes. please feel free to propose keeping the sections you think should be retained. And please focus on the content, not me - I'm not willing to get into another endless squabble with you. Bacondrum (talk) 22:41, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

Yes, details are. The summary should still be in the lead. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 01:18, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

• This looks like an improvement to me. Guy (help!) 23:25, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
• Support. (Summoned by bot) The current inclusion of a ghostrwiriting allegation in the lead paragraph is especially undesirable. Coretheapple (talk) 17:34, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
• Support with the caveat that the word ridicules in the last sentence of the first Lede para. be changed per WP:NPOV. Note: I had contemplated performing a non-admin closure and assessing consensus, but didn't want to do that with my objection to the word ridicules. I don't think that should stand in the revised revision. Also, do we know the social media bans are permanent? Even Wikipedia bans are not permanent. Suggest rephrasing to indefinite. Similar, also suggest spelling "paedophilia" as "pedophilia" per, I'm assuming, WP:MOS. --Doug Mehus (talk) 19:52, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

Pedo / Paedo; a reminder that "This article is written in British English, which has its own spelling conventions" among which is paedophilia etc. Nedrutland (talk) 08:13, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

• Procedural Comment: Adding an RfC tag to this to boost its awareness and build consensus, and because subsequent comments to this one on this talk page have outlined WP:NPOV issues in Lede. In short, we need to action this. To non-involved editor/admin RfC closer: please close with the optional closure tags when consensus has been attained. Thanks. Doug Mehus (talk) 19:59, 7 November 2019 (UTC)
• Follow-up to Procedural Comment: THIS is why we should make it mandatory to use RfC closing tags. Legobot removed my added RfC tag as this has already been closed, apparently, but not indication of consensus. Moreover, there is an outstanding request for closure Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Requests for closure#Talk:Milo_Yiannopoulos#RFC - Improving the lede --Doug Mehus (talk) 20:04, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

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

PLEASE.... Update Website URL

Disappointed to see my earlier recommendation ignored. So I will repeat it. Please update the webiste to https://milo.net/. He has moved his website content to https://milo.net/ after selling the dangerous.com domain There is another company using the old domain so in the interest of accuracy, please update this urgently. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.197.159.34 (talk) 16:27, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

This has been done. I don't think this was really urgent, though. This site seems semi-dormant. It has only one or two updates a month, and has only had one update since dangerous.com was sold. Further, milo.net prominently links to several dead websites, including one for milo-inc.com. According to archive.org, that one has been down for over a year, since around Dec. 22, 2018. If there is anything of encyclopedic value buried in this site, it's buried very deep.

In future, if you have any urgent requests, consider Template:Request edit. Thanks. Grayfell (talk) 06:37, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

References

Re-added his view on trans

Hello

I had forgotten about this page and that I had added material about his views on trans last year, which I did as I saw no mention on them; only his views on homosexuality, which was a bit odd, not the least as his views on trans have been even more condemning than his views on homosexuality. However, when recalling and re-checking the page today, I noticed that it had been removed by Bacondrum with the explanation that; Hi, I removed your recent addition, I get why you added it and thank you for your contribution, but we are not reporters, we don't need to report every obscene or stupid thing the man says, it's all undue. The endless quoting and reporting on this article should be pruned back to the most notable and widely reported, not expanded to include everything he has ever said that caused offense...we'd be here forever. I hope you understand where I'm coming from, his list of offensiveness is endless, it's his stick to offend people.) [to talk section]

Which is however not a good enough reason, as, as I stated above, his statements on homosexuality are duly reported in the section, so why not then give his views on trans got even the slightest mention? After all, the section is named "LGBT Issues", not G Issues, no? Which by the way also means that mention on his views on lesbians should be added, too. To my knowledge, he hasn't said anything on Bisexuals,otherwise that, too, had of course likewise deserved mention.

In any case, I therefore decided to be dold and re-added the material. If it is removed again I will then let it remain removed, however if so I think there needs to be a better reason for that removal than what Bacondrum gave.

Sincerely Okama-San (talk) 22:45, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

It appears this content has been removed again. I agree with this removal, as this information was not summarized in a neutral way. Yiannopoulos says many things which are intentionally inflammatory. Wikipedia is not obligated to repeat any of it just because it can be sourced, and we must look at context and due weight. Per WP:BRD, please gain consensus before restoring this a third time. Grayfell (talk) 23:25, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

Ah, however I am afraid that the explanation that the 'information was not summarized in a neutral way' is not a very valid reason, as the text regarding his views on trans merely repeats his own non-neutrality and statements, which as far as I am aware is what Wikipedia do regarding articles on controversial individuals; repeating what they said that was deemed controversial and gained much attention (in this specific case his speech at Delaware University regarding trans). In short, Milo is the person making non-neutral' statements, not the sources merely repeating his views. If repeating of non-neutral statements are however a no, then the current text in regards of his views on gay people is certainly not very neutral, either and is as such worthy of removal.

Quote; "Yiannopoulos says many things which are intentionally inflammatory. Wikipedia is not obligated to repeat any of it just because it can be sourced"

Following that logic, however, his views on gay individuals may as already mentioned be removed, too. For, if the section currently titled "GLBT issues" is intended to in actuality solely focus on the "G", that is his views regarding gay people, while ignoring his likewise stated and higly inflammatory views on LBT, too, then the honest thing would obviously be to rename the section to either "Views on gay people" or "Gay issues" as that is its sole focus. GLBT does after all not equal solely gay people, as the "umbrella" is a bit more diverse than such (although I am aware that many people, including Milo, holds the view that GLBT = Gays only).

Sincerely - Okama-San (talk) 23:29, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

Is your goal to add inflammatory quotes, or to summarize what reliable sources actually say?

This is now about multiple related-but-separate issues.

You're right that there are too many badly-sourced details in that section. I have removed those which lacked WP:SECONDARY sources. The sole exception was his commentary on his own sexuality, as this can be supported by a primary source.

The section title should, generally, follow the contents of the section, not the other way around. Otherwise, we could name it whatever we wanted as an excuse to include info we personally found interesting.

The proposal about trans issues was this:

In October 24, 2016, Milo held a speech at the university of Delaware during which he described trans people as mentally ill and, among other things, stated that “Trannies can never be women, or men for the small slice of women insane enough to desire to give up female privilege”. He further claimed that he spoke in the best interest of trans people when he additionally encouraged the audience to “never feel bad for mocking a transgender person...It is our job to point out their absurdity, to not make the problem worse by pretending they are normal. Much like fat-shaming, if our mockery drives them to get the help they need, we may save their life.”.[] The administrators and college Republicans were harsly condemned by students, alumni and state GOP leaders for hosting Milo, as well as by other LGBT Republicans who slammed Milo for alienating them as fellow Republicans with his statements.[]

This was a bad summary of these sources. Both of these sources could be used, but not like this. A neutral summary would mean that we would use the Advocate source to mention that, in 2016, his college tour included transphobic slurs and rhetoric, and and endorsement of North Carolina's "Bathroom bill".The Delaware Online source is primarily about the backlash to his comments, not the comments themselves, so it would also have to be proportionately summarized.

Using these sources as an excuse to cram in more of his own blather won't fly. Grayfell (talk) 01:06, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

Just reverted edits to the lead by GergisBaki. Reasons given in my edit summary. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 00:46, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

GergisBaki, this article is under WP:Discretionary sanctions. When one edits this article, it clearly states, "You must not reinstate any challenged (via reversion) edits without obtaining consensus on the talk page of this article." So revert yourself, or I will take this to WP:ANI. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 22:00, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

This seems like a discussion worth having, and User:GergisBaki should comment.

The sources currently used for this sentence don't support either version, so this is a problem.

So, do other sources actually use the word "criticize", or is that a summary from editors? I think "criticism" implies more substance than is justified, as his "critiques" are mostly pretentious tautology masked by snark and camp. I'm not sure that "ridicule" is any better, but I'm not convinced it's any worse, either. That he "insults" his targets seems like the most direct way to explain it, but if sources give him more credit than this, so be it.

As for "activist", I strongly dislike that description in any article, but it shouldn't be taken for granted, and would also depend on sources.

As used by Yiannopoulos, political correctness is a meaningless buzzword which adds no meaning, but does explain his rationale. Grayfell (talk) 00:37, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

____

References

No primary evidence that "Dangerous" is ghostwritten

It says in a very prominent way in the first paragraph that the book "Dangerous" was ghostwritten. However, Milo denies this in this interview at 1:57: interview: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LAiGoWnsVXE. Furthermore, the Buzzfeed pit piece never provided any primary evidence for any such thing. At bare minimum, it should be pointed out that this accusation comes from Buzzfeed, the same outlet that pretty irresponsibly published the Trump dossier. Furthermore, accusations from Buzzfeed hit pieces probably don't belong in the first paragraph. Unless the goal of this article is to be a hit piece. Myatrrcc (talk) 04:14, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

I am disappointed to see that my edits were immediately reverted without any conversation. At bare minimum, accusations from a Buzzfeed hit piece do not belong in the first paragraph of any legitimate encyclopedia article. I say that as a Bernie supporter. At minimum, move this accusation (for which there is no primary evidence and which Milo himself denies) somewhere less prominent in the article. For instance, you can talk about this accusation in the section about the book "Dangerous."Myatrrcc (talk) 04:40, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

@Myatrrcc: There is WP:1RR in place on this page, as well as a "consensus required" restriction. Re-instating your edit violated these; do not do it again. GorillaWarfare (talk) 04:42, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

What is WP:1RR? I am not familiar with that. What is do know is that an unsubstantiated claim from a Buzzfeed hit piece does not belong in the first paragraph of any legitimate encyclopedia article. That is the issue I am trying to address here. Myatrrcc (talk) 04:47, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

It is explained in the template at the top of the page (ctrl-F "WARNING: ACTIVE ARBITRATION REMEDIES"), as well as in the link I provided to WP:1RR. Editors on this page are limited to one revert per 24-hour period. Though I see I was mistaken in thinking your first set of edits was a revert—in that case it is only the "consensus required" restriction you have violated, not 1RR. GorillaWarfare (talk) 04:50, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

I only see 1 revert, though they certainly violated consensus required. PackMecEng (talk) 04:51, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

Heh, just edit conflicted with you saying the same thing. GorillaWarfare (talk) 04:52, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

Great minds? PackMecEng (talk) 04:54, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

So it appears that I am not allowed to add anything new to this page. That is too bad, since wanted to include the following new material:

"In early 2020, Yiannopoulos authored a new book about the trial of Roger Stone. Royalties from the book will go to Stone's defense fund. In the book, Yiannopoulos is critical of Stone's 40-month prison sentence." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Myatrrcc (talk • contribs) 04:58, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

References

As was explained, you cannot reintroduce material that has been challenged by another editor without first achieving consensus for it. GorillaWarfare (talk) 05:14, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

Has this book actually been released? I find it weird someone can author a book, where the most significant thing about it is criticism of a prison sentence which was handed down about 2 daya ago. Nil Einne (talk) 09:23, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

It is in pre-order from what I see. Slated for March.[3] PackMecEng (talk) 15:19, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

Has the book actually been completed though? If it hasn't, "authored" seems inaccurate. He is still writing (authoring if you want) the book. And has someone actually reviewed the book? If not, it seems to me it will be more accurate to say 'he/his publisher/whoever says is critical of Stone's 40 month prison sentence since we don't actually know what is in this book other than what some primary source tells us. Frankly IMO it will probably be best to just wait for this book to be released. Nil Einne (talk) 15:07, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

I think the safest bet is just sit on it until the book comes out and RS start reporting on it. PackMecEng (talk) 00:46, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

Website

FYI his website URL doesn't work anymore. page is broken — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A00:23C7:1181:5F00:8073:B8E2:822E:FB92 (talk) 19:33, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

I've removed the link. GorillaWarfare (talk) 23:24, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

Gay married to a POC and of Jewish descent, but from the far-right?

I'm sorry to bring in this conversation, but I have trouble to wrap my mind around the fact this man can be from the far-right or a Nazi apologist when he is gay, has married an African-American and is of Jewish descent.

Gays, blacks and Jewish people are, by the Naxi ideology, to be exterminated yet yhis man is all that far-right and Nazis would exterminate.

Please enlighten me as how can a.gay Jewish married to a POC can be a Nazi?

Thank you Gogo4Words (talk) 22:01, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

Read the article and its sources, do a Google search, then read some more sources—it's all there. - MrX 🖋 22:10, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

That's probably a question for Mr. Yiannopoulos himself, not the editors who maintain a Wikipedia article about him. We can't presume to know his personal thoughts on reconciling those things. GorillaWarfare (talk) 23:42, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

Well he's not far-right in the sense of being a fascist, but in recent years the media has now expanded "far right" to apply to anyone mildly opposed to mass migration or who doesn't agree with feminism etc so Milo falls under that definition. So while I'm sympathetic to your point and indeed listing Milo as "far right" does undermine Wikipedia's credibility, you must remember that we don't adhere to what is true but what is shown in the sources and some have started to call him "far right". The situation is complicated by the completely meaningless term "alt right" - Milo himself explictly used it to mean conservatives who tend to be very principled and ideological but also provocative, ie defending things like free speech to extreme degrees saying outrageous things. Over and over Milo disavowed anything fascist or "far right". However, "alt right" has come to often be used by some media outlets to mean fascist, and since Milo calls himself alt-right, or did anyway, it allows those who wish to call him a fascist to find a source for it, really using that ambiguity. So for example the BBC won't ever call him "far right" or fascist - it's clearly nonsense to call him that - but will call him alt-right, and that provides all the cover needed to call him a "far right" figure on here, absurd as it is.

So you're right bascially but you probably won't get anywhere on this issue. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A00:23C7:987:BB00:849D:7554:1FCA:2486 (talk) 22:28, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

The article doesn't depict Milo as a Nazi or even an ideological racist/homophobe. It instead depicts him as an opportunist who dog whistled to racists, Nazis, etc for attention and readership. GergisBaki (talk) 11:36, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

George Pell is no longer a "convicted child sex offender"

The article as it stands is slander. That section needs a re-write to say that when Yiannopoulos commented on the case he was a child sex offender, but his charges have been vacated. Or something like that. IANAL, so I need help re-writing this article to conform to the facts as they stand at the present time.--HalMartin (talk) 20:22, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and removed the sentence entirely, because the only source for it was the article itself. Without a third party source there's no indication that that particular article of Yiannopoulos' is notable enough to be mentioned specifically (out of all other articles he's written). If a third party source is found, no objections to it being added with tweaked wording to indicate that although Pell was a convicted child sex offender at the time, the charges were quashed. GorillaWarfare (talk) 22:05, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:

• Milo Yiannopoulos 2016.jpg

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 08:37, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Milo Yiannopoulos 2016.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 15:37, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

Odd arrangement of sources

Hi, I noticed that the sources in this article aren't written the way other articles have them. IN particular source #12 has about 5-6 different sources under it. This doesn't;t seem to be common practice and as many of the sources say the same thing, it's redundant to have so many of them. In addition, the sources in this article are often preceded by statements which seem to be there to attempt justify the conclusion the author came to from those sources. However, that shouldn't be necessary as the sources should speak for themselves. I mean no harm by these remarks it is simply something that struck me as particularly odd. Thanks and hope this helps — Preceding unsigned comment added by Graeme534 (talk • contribs) 22:03, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

@Graeme534: That citation style is fairly often used for particularly controversial statements, where multiple sources are needed to support a characterization. It's common for controversial statements to be challenged, and for people to try to dispute the particular quality of a given source, which is why it's often easier to provide a handful of sources even if they all say the same thing. I'm familiar with the style from my work at Incel.

As for your comment about the sources in this article are often preceded by statements which seem to be there to attempt justify the conclusion the author came to from those sources, can you clarify what you mean? Specific examples would be helpful. GorillaWarfare (talk) 23:11, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

Two comments about the introduction

1. Is it necessary to deliver a political classification of Breitbart, when its linked to its own article? 2. Is it necessary to bring up the ghostwriting issue so early in the introduction? What are the most noteworthy facts about Milo? I wholeheartedly dislike Milo, as most people do, but i think this intro is trying hard to make its viewpoint very clear very early. Rka001 (talk) 19:47, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

I agree. This article clearly does have some viewpoints that should not be stated in a neutral article. Whether you like, or dislike Milo Yiannopoulos, this article obviously does not like him, and this article needs to be slightly rewritten in order to only be stating facts about him. Ethan Parmet (talk) 13:33, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

I don't want the article to like him. I don't want it to dislike him either. The article should reflect what independent reliable sources say about him. Whether you feel those things are good, bad or indifferent is immaterial.

If there is material in the article that you feel is not reliably sourced, identify it. If there is material in reliable sources that you feel should be added, identify it. Saying the article says "negative" things about him is neither meaningful nor productive. - SummerPhD^v2.0 21:16, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

@Rka001: I do think it is necessary to briefly describe Breitbart, as this article does. We cannot expect every reader to either know what Breitbart is already, or click the wikilink to even know the slightest thing about the company. Sure, if the reader wishes to take a deep dive into learning about Breitbart, they should read that article, but a portion of a sentence describing the company gives important context to this article without forcing the reader to load another page. As for the ghostwriting complaint, I have no strong opinions about whether that belongs in the lead, so I'll leave that to other editors. GorillaWarfare (talk) 15:42, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

Yiannopoulos' notability springs from his writing. Whether that writing is the history of veganism in Vegan News, in-depth analysis of the direction of current medical training in Journal of American Pedagogy is relevant. Dr. Seuss was an author. So was Marcus Aurelius. Neither of their articles should introduce them with "______ was an author."

That he may not have written the book bearing his name is closely attached to him being an author. - SummerPhD^v2.0 21:45, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

This particular unsourced sentence "The emails show that this was an effort to appeal to a racist readership through dog-whistling." is a pretty ridiculous editiorialized conclusion to draw which is entirely unbecoming of an encyclopedia. Editiorializing like this doesn't belong in the lead or anywhere in the article. Basil the Bat Lord (talk) 14:17, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

I agree that's inappropriate for the lead, I've removed it. GorillaWarfare (talk) 16:37, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

Cooperation with FBI

At the end of may 2020, IFA (Integrity First for America) published one of the documents on the case of the events of Charlottesville. According to this document, Milo Yiannopoulos turned out to be an informant of the FBI and was funded by the same organization. I think this information should be included in the article. NatkeK (talk) 14:53, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

References

Claim of attending Cambridge

The side panel asserts that he attended Cambridge University, with no source other than an article written by himself. Are there any other sources that corroborate this? If not, I suggest that we remove it as it is not very well sourced. DiscoStu42 (talk) 05:14, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

Actually, this Guardian article seems to back up his claim, though it says that he dropped out, not that he was expelled. DiscoStu42 (talk) 05:42, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

The Wolfson College Magazine of 2009-10 is contemporary proof of him attending (photograph of him as 'Ents Officer') but not evidence for why he left. Nedrutland (talk) 08:17, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

Requested edit

Can someone please change "An ghostwritten autobiography" to "A ghostwritten autobiography" and then delete this? Thanks :-) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Niblets (talk • contribs) 15:31, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

 Done thanks! GorillaWarfare (talk) 17:52, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

Milo is almost entirely right winged on all of his views, but he is not far right, the far right despise him. That would be like saying Bill Maher is far left because all of his views are on the left. Maher isn’t far left, but he is all left, big difference. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1700:FB1:530:8039:F842:313E:980E (talk) 16:08, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia reflects what is published in reliable sources, which generally describe him as far right. If you would like more history into discussions about how to describe Yiannopoulos, I would suggest perusing the archives of this talk page, as it has been discussed at some length. GorillaWarfare (talk) 17:43, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

What terminology do we now have for Adolf Hitler?

I was just wondering: now that Wikipedia applies the term "far-right" to a small-state loving, freedom loving, free-speech loving homosexual who is in a relationship with a black man, what terminology will Wikipedia be using for Adolf Hitler? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.69.73.220 (talk) 09:33, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

I would recommend discussing any concerns you have with Adolf Hitler at Talk:Adolf Hitler. WP:OTHERCONTENT. GorillaWarfare (talk) 19:58, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia calls Yiannopoulos a far-right polemicist because that's what independent reliable sources call him. If independent reliable sources called him a cheese sandwich, Wikipedia would say the same and it wouldn't change anything at grilled cheese. - SummerPhD^v2.0 22:29, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

A Vegan. Only in death does duty end (talk) 10:56, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

Adolf Hitler was recently highlighted at Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard, as having a neutrally written lead. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 11:51, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

Said neutral lead says he was a dictator central to the Holocaust. - SummerPhD^v2.0 18:28, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

What terminology does Wikipedia now have for liberals?

I was just wondering: now that Wikipedia applies the term "far-right" to a small-state loving, freedom loving, anti-Islam, free-speech loving homosexual who is in a relationship with a black man, what terminology will Wikipedia be using for liberals? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.69.73.220 (talk) 18:22, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

See our replies above. If you would like to discuss the usage of the term "far-right" or any other term in this article, we'd be happy to, but these repetitive rhetorical questions are not particularly productive. GorillaWarfare (talk) 19:27, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia reports what independent reliable sources say, whether it agrees with your opinions or not. - SummerPhD^v2.0 19:52, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

Why would an independent and reliable source describe a small-state loving, freedom loving, anti-Islam, free-speech loving homosexual who is in a relationship with a black man as a member of the "far-right"? Surely that wouldn't make them an independent or reliable source, by definition? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.69.73.220 (talk) 17:21, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

Just because you disagree with them doesn't make them unreliable. Feel free to contact The Atlantic, The Guardian, Bloomberg, or the Sydney Morning Herald if you want to ask for their reasoning; asking here is not going to get you very far. As for the reliability of those above sources, three of them are used so frequently on Wikipedia that the consensus on their reliability has been recorded at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources (WP:RSP#The Atlantic, WP:RSP#The Guardian, and WP:RSP#Bloomberg), where they are all marked green as generally reliable sources based on strong past consensus. The Sydney Morning Herald has also been discussed plenty of times at WP:RSN and seems to be agreed to be generally reliable. If you would like to contest the reliability of these publications, WP:RSN is the place to go. GorillaWarfare (talk) 17:48, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

No, we don't decide whether a source is reliable or not based on whether or not you agree with them. - SummerPhD^v2.0 02:36, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

According to https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/ these media sources you quote are left wing, hardly unbiased. Once again proving why wikipedia is unreliable. And why I will not give you a penny.24.139.24.163 (talk) 00:49, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

Please see WP:BIASEDSOURCE. If you have other reliable sources that take a different view that you think ought to be used, I invite you to suggest them here; we strive to represent fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic. GorillaWarfare (talk) 03:10, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

Mononym

NorthBySouthBaranof, whether or not he's referred to commonly as just "Milo" is of course relevant to the page, so not sure what that comment meant. As far as sources, here are a handful that already appear on this article referring to him by the mononym (there might be more; I just did a quick scan): [4], [5], [6], [7]. I would say it's also relevant that he had started Milo, Inc and owns milo.net. I don't personally know much of anything about this guy, but various users have claimed he's well-known as "Milo" on the Milo disambiguation page and couldn't be bothered to try adding it here, so I decided to try it for them. Perfectly fine if it doesn't stay on the page. -- Fyrael (talk) 17:01, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

2600:1702:1600:1830:E410:C5B4:7A84:DFBC (talk) 00:20, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

Is Islam an Ideology, or a Race?

"He has attempted to distinguish his opposition to Muslim immigration into the West from racism.[78]" In the source cited with this statement, Milo contends that his views on immigration in general (not Muslim immigration specifically) are not "racist". No where in the source does Milo, the author, or anyone else make the mistake of identifying Islam as a race rather than an ideology. If one discriminates against one or more members of an ideology (e.g. Christians, Klansmen, Mormons, 911 Truthers, Marxists, Nazis, etc.), such discrimination can be referenced as "bigotry", but not "racism". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1702:1600:1830:E410:C5B4:7A84:DFBC (talk) 00:19, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

If those calling him racist believe that he discriminates against Middle Eastern Muslims based on their race, then "racism" is the correct term. His defense then is that he is only against the religion and not the race, ergo not racist, which is why our sentence says "distinguish". And looking at what's in the source, the sentence seems to be a pretty accurate summary. Here it is:

"The advice is - don't be scared by allegations of racism, but by the same token, don't be a racist," he said.

"Most people don't want massive unskilled immigration from the Middle East, almost nobody does."

Mr Yiannopoulos said Muslims who immigrated to Australian should integrate with broader national culture and criticised the religion for "regressive" views on gay and women's rights.

"I'm not comfortable with the horrifyingly regressive social attitudes of Muslims in the west," he said.

-- Fyrael (talk) 05:49, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

Fascism?

Yiannopoulos is reliably called alt-right and has multiple independent sources linking him to neo-Nazi and white nationalist ideology. Is it wrong to classify him as a fascist? Docktuh (talk) 23:12, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

Yes. See WP:LABEL. Unless reliable sources regularly use that specific term for him, we should avoid it. GorillaWarfare (talk) 23:31, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 9 March 2021

He says he’s not gay now. Article says he’s openly gay 2603:8081:640:111C:449E:9898:8907:583E (talk) 04:50, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. ◢  Ganbaruby!  (Say hi!) 07:42, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

Different editor. Milo is claiming he is "ex gay" according to this article but it's important to note that he has told LifeSiteNews that he "treats it like an addiction" like alcoholism and you "never stop being an alcoholic". So he's admitting that he is still gay. It would be useful to that he claims he is ex gay and hopefully another source will come up where he says the "addiction" doesn't go away. 222.154.246.11 (talk) 00:52, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

Milo now allegedly straight, current source is garbage

Milo allegedly held an interview with LifeSite News in which he has professed to being an 'ex-gay', yet rather than cite LifeSite News directly as a source someone has used LGBTQ News. The article is, quite frankly, garbage. It only refers to him being an 'ex-gay' in the headline and then the article itself is just a summarisation of who he is bordering on slander piece that doesn't even link to the LifeSite News article. Refer to reference 28.

How about changing that source to the actual original source? https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/activist-milo-yiannopoulos-is-now-ex-gay-consecrating-his-life-to-st-joseph?utm_source=top_news&utm_campaign=standard — Preceding unsigned comment added by 180.150.114.43 (talk) 01:09, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

LifeSiteNews is not an acceptable reliable source. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 02:00, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

WP:RSP#LifeSiteNews GorillaWarfare (talk) 02:10, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

If an interview with the man himself comes from an unacceptable source then why is an article that amounts to nothing more than a slander piece acceptable? Why is a poorly written secondary source that only briefly refers to the subject in a single sentence (the headline) more acceptable than an actual primary source from the horse's mouth? How can we trust secondary sources that use supposedly dubious primary sources?

Agree with previous comment. The interview is the only valid statement, even if people despise LifeSite News. If it were an opinion piece, than fine, but the interview stands the test of validity. Furthermore, the "source" LGBTQ News is just as trashy as LifeSite News, but for the other American party, and should not be considered more reliable than LifeSite News. --Tallard (talk) 07:51, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

It's not an issue of "despising" LifeSite News. It's a deprecated source, and should not be used. A reliable source (Daily Beast) has since reported that Milo identified as ex-gay in an interview with LifeSite, and we are now reporting just that, which is acceptable; I've swapped out the RS for LGBTQ News. GorillaWarfare (talk) 16:08, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

Not a U.S. citizen

As far as I know, Milo Yiannopoulos is not a U.S. citizen yet he's been an open campaigner for Donald Trump--47.154.83.239 (talk) 18:14, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

I'm not sure what your suggestion is here... This article says he is a British citizen. GorillaWarfare (talk) 18:17, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

Misspelling

I notice pedophilia is misspelled, but I don't know how to edit the page, someone who knows how/has the permissions, should edit it

You might notice above "This article is written in British English, which has its own spelling conventions ..."; among those conventions is the spelling 'paedophilia'. Please remember to sign your contributions on Talk pages. Nedrutland (talk) 22:16, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 12 April 2021

President Trump is referred to in this article as simply “Trump.” This is an obvious indicator of personal bias and disrespect by the author. President should precede “Trump” 2601:85:4780:3A60:81AA:DEAF:9072:D0D1 (talk) 16:40, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

 Partly done: Our convention is to use a person's full name, wikilinked if they have an article, in the first mention and then use their surname without honorofics after that (MOS:SURNAME). I've adjusted the first mention to [[Donald Trump]] accordingly. GorillaWarfare (talk) 17:58, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

Mononym

As the article currently stands, evidence for Milo as a mononym is lacking. The two cited sources evidence that Yiannopoulos prefers to be called Milo and was billed as such at a political event. I don't believe that to be sufficient to justify inclusion in the article, let alone the first sentence. Are there reliable sources that exclusively refer to Milo as some would for Cher or Madonna? Pinging Superdisk as the one who introduced this content. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 22:34, 24 April 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for the ping. Milo is referred to simply as Milo on the cover of his book. His articles on Breitbart (which I can't link to, due to Wikipedia's blacklist???????) are attributed simply to "Milo." Here's another article that in the headline calls him just Milo. Superdisk (talk) 22:54, 24 April 2021 (UTC)

What we're looking for are reliable, independent sources, which is why his book doesn't apply and Breitbart isn't accepted. The out.com article actually immediately refers to his full name and then later describes him as Yiannopoulos. Is there anything else? Firefangledfeathers (talk) 22:59, 24 April 2021 (UTC)

@Superdisk: Ideally we'd want a source that specifically states that he is commonly referred to mononymously as Milo. The presence of sources that do so may be based on his own preferences, stylistic choices by the news publication, etc. but don't necessarily mean it is a common thing. GorillaWarfare (talk) 23:07, 24 April 2021 (UTC)

@Firefangledfeathers: @GorillaWarfare: I'm sure there are other sources, but regardless, he chooses to present his "stage name" as the pseudonym MILO, in the same way Prince or Lorde choose their public name. They didn't earn their mononyms because people started calling them that, they are called that because that's how they choose to be referred to. I think the same applies in this case, but the argument is made stronger due to the sources I linked in which he is known to be booked at venues under the name MILO, and prefers the name. Superdisk (talk) 03:39, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

(edit conflict) With Prince and Lorde there are plenty of sources ([8], [9]) to verify that they are known mononymously by these names. The same does not appear to be true of Yiannopoulos. People can request to be called all kinds of things, but they are not "known by" a name until it enters common usage. From what I am seeing (The Guardian, The Mary Sue), it's verifiable that Milo wants to be known mononymously, but less so that he actually is. In fact one of the top results for "milo mononym" is an article about that very thing: [10]. GorillaWarfare (talk) 03:54, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

Ah, one more source. This one's already used as a reference on this very page. I think this ought to serve as a source which confirms his mononym. Superdisk (talk) 03:45, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

Where is that already being used? As for its usability here, it's an opinion piece that makes no statements about him actually being known only as "Milo". See WP:HEADLINE, also. GorillaWarfare (talk) 04:01, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

It's currently source #77. I'm not sure it's possible to find someone who literally wrote the sentence "Milo Yiannopoulos is known mononymously as MILO" in a research paper or anything-- Although this mention is in a headline, it directly implies that he is known just as "Milo" because it says that he is now called that (as compared to "Milo Yiannopoulos" in the past). Finding a use of the mononym in the wild should count towards him being known as it, surely? Superdisk (talk) 04:07, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

That's weird, for some reason my ctrl-f didn't turn that up. So it is; I'm going to tag it as needing a better source. I'm on the fence about whether that one headline is sufficient. GorillaWarfare (talk) 04:08, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

I agree with the better source needed tag; quoting a puffy opinion piece as evidence for his past political party affiliations is very strange. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 04:11, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

I must also note that the article itself refers to the name Yiannopoulos only once and then strictly uses the mononym thereafter. Superdisk (talk) 04:13, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

Even assuming I'm wrong about both of the following counterarguments, this one source is not enough. My issues with this source are that it's an opinion piece and that the author is someone who knows him personally, and therefore might have personal reasons to call him by his first name. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 04:20, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

The impossibility of finding that sentence is evidence for us not including "AKA Milo" in the article. Unlike Lorde and Prince, it is not exceedingly easy to find reliable, independent sources that refer to Yiannopolous exclusively, or nearly so, as Milo. I wouldn't object to including a line somewhere about him preferring to be called Milo. But unless there's more out there to cite, we can't use Wikipedia's voice to say something that isn't verifiable. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 04:18, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

It must be noted that the source linked which supposedly supports Lorde's mononym is the same caliber of article as the Milo one (i.e. a "puffy opinion" piece, and does not outright state that she is known only as Lorde. Colloquial use of a name is inherently going to be a "puffy opinion" thing since he's a public figure. Superdisk (talk) 04:24, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

I just picked a source at random out of what came up on Google; this is a discussion about Milo and not about Lorde so I wasn't about to put more than a few seconds of effort into it. Though I would note that I would generally refer to "Lorde" as a stage name rather than a mononym, though it apparently is technically also a mononym. Back to the actual question, I think Firefangledfeathers' suggestion of stating in the article that he wishes to be known mononymously, but excluding the mention from the lead sentence, is a good path forward until better sourcing emerges. GorillaWarfare (talk) 04:31, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

While I'm at it, I'd like to bring up one more source which I think might convince you-- specifically the section

His brand is so effective that the mononym “Milo” is virtually at household-levels of recognition[...]

The site is aimed at his target audience, although I'm not sure how much more cut and dried it can get than this. Superdisk (talk) 04:37, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

The Daily Caller (RSP entry) is unlikely to convince me of anything, and certainly can't be used as a source. The statement is a step in the right direction, though; if you can find an actually reliable source saying it, then I'd be satisfied. GorillaWarfare (talk) 04:39, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

lol beat me to it Firefangledfeathers (talk) 04:40, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

The Daily Caller is deprecated for a reason. We should absolutely not rely on it as evidence for factual claims. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 04:40, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

Due to Milo's transgressive nature, it tends to be the case that the only sites talking about him are "alternative" media sources on the fringe of public acceptability. More to the point, Milo is going to be known by his mononym primarily among his target demographic-- citing a source which targets that same demographic is fair game in this case, IMO, no matter how unreliable the site otherwise is. Superdisk (talk) 04:44, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

There are at least a hundred usable sources in this article already, so it's not the case that "the only sites talking about him are 'alternative' media sources on the fringe of public acceptability". As for The Daily Caller being fair game, a deprecated source is a deprecated source. GorillaWarfare (talk) 04:48, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

How's this?

Milo — he and his acolytes rather ludicrously use the single name —[...]

Another one.

That incident, along with his participation in the "Gamergate" disgrace, helped rocket Milo to fame of the single-name status.

Superdisk (talk) 04:59, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

Would you support a line like this: "Avid supporters of Yiannopoulos may refer to him by his first name." Maybe somewhere near the end of the Early and personal life section? Firefangledfeathers (talk) 05:04, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

Note that first source is also an opinion piece. GorillaWarfare (talk) 05:05, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

@Firefangledfeathers: I'm not sure that such a statement would accurately capture the same meaning as in reality-- Lorde's page, for instance, mentions in the first sentence that she is professionally known as just Lorde. I believe the same to be true of Milo-- he is known professionally by the name (his book, his YouTube channel, and his articles) but also colloquially (the myriad sources I've linked (of which I think the 9news.com.au one most accurately illustrates the point)). I think at minimum it should mention that he is known professionally by the name, but ideally it should mention that it is a mononym. @GorillaWarfare: True, although the second source I think is the more potent one anyway. Superdisk (talk) 05:12, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

Yes, I do think the second source may be usable. GorillaWarfare (talk) 05:14, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

Superdisk, surely you have to admit that there's a difference between Lorde and Yiannopoulos? I am truly glad that reference how supporters refer to him, but it's clear that the vast majority of reliable sources don't refer to him by a mononym. "Known professionally" requires more than "supporters know him as". Firefangledfeathers (talk) 05:16, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

Well, clearly he's not of the same celebrity status as Lorde, but regardless I think most people would agree that Yiannopoulos is who springs to mind when you hear the word "Milo" these days. I think we just brought up Lorde as an off-the-head example of a person with a mononym anyway. Do you have any contention with the second source I linked? Superdisk (talk) 05:21, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

I think about the drink!

I don't have any contention with the 9 News source, but I still contend that one source is not enough. There's no Policy backing me up on this, but I think it's fair to only say a person is professionally known by a mononym if a solid chunk of the coverage of them refers to them mononymously. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 05:36, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

Well, as long as it doesn't break policy, I think it's now fair to add a bit about the mononym. Currently the opening sentence reads

Milo Yiannopoulos (/jəˈnɒpələs/;[8] born Milo Hanrahan, 18 October 1984), who has also published as Milo Andreas Wagner,[9] is a[...]

I think we could change it to

Milo Yiannopoulos (/jəˈnɒpələs/;[8] born Milo Hanrahan, 18 October 1984), who has also published as Milo Andreas Wagner and the mononym MILO,[9] is a[...]

What do you think about that? It captures the fact that he is publicly known by the name but doesn't imply anything about the popularity of it (although I personally think that popularity shouldn't matter, I'm willing to make a concession until I find another source). Superdisk (talk) 01:07, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

I notice you keep uppercasing "MILO". Is there any indication it's actually cased that way? GorillaWarfare (talk) 01:36, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

That's how he stylizes it on his YouTube channel, his Telegram group, his website and the cover of his book (although this one might just be a stylistic choice). He also owns (owned?) a company called MILO, Inc. Superdisk (talk) 02:09, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

Well, in absence of any further issues, I'm going to throw it on the page. Revert and let's hash it out some more if there are any qualms. Superdisk (talk) 23:12, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

I love how “far right” is put right in the first sentence of the article

When is this biased website gonna realize that not everyone who isn’t left wing is automatically far right? Dyldyl9 (talk) 02:13, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

When reliable sources describe a person as far-right, which they do, we also describe them as such. GorillaWarfare (talk) 02:30, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

Ah yes because all those left leaning sources who aren’t biased at all totally prove of him being far right Dyldyl9 (talk) 20:22, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

Please see WP:BIASEDSOURCE and WP:RSP. Feel free to begin a new discussion at WP:RSN if you would like to dispute the reliability of any of these sources, the first three of which are generally reliable at RSP, and the fourth which has been repeatedly described as reliable at RSN. GorillaWarfare (talk) 20:32, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

Since I am feeling accommodating today, I have added two more right-leaning sources for you to verify the "far-right" descriptor: [11] GorillaWarfare (talk) 20:47, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

Wow, putting two articles up and claiming they’re right wing just to own the cons. How very nice of you Dyldyl9 (talk) 21:34, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

Why are you being so defensive Dyldy19 ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.159.131.63 (talk) 03:54, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

Milo thinks that dogs stop barking at him is a sign of god

Well, I'm not sure if this is right or wrong but here is the video.

I didn't find the original video so I don't know the context.

Voilà, I just wanted to put it here.

2A02:A03F:C92F:3F00:2095:44F9:50E0:7909 (talk) 22:53, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

Without reliable sources indicating this is somehow relevant to an encyclopedic biography of Yiannopoulos, it should be left to the outlets that still feel the need to give Yiannopoulos headline space for his various stunts. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 14:02, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

Cambridge?

Is there third-party evidence that he went to Cambridge? The only source seems to be him claiming that he did (but got kicked out). DiscoStu42 (talk) 08:49, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

A search for Wolfson in the archives of this Talk does offer supporting evidence. Contemporary sources include the student news site The Tab https://thetab.com/uk/cambridge/2010/11/14/stephen-fry-lashes-out-at-wolfson-student-1867 and the Wolfson College magazine (p.137 - with photo) https://www.yumpu.com/en/document/read/7874550/magazine-2009-2010-wolfson-college-university-of-cambridge Nedrutland (talk) 09:26, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

Is Vice magazine a reliable source?

I mean, I have found Vice to be useful with some of its stories and not useful with others. Maybe a better source could be found regarding his anti-feminist views and so forth... such a source shouldn't be difficult to find.--Phil of rel (talk) 22:10, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

COVID-19/Newsweek

@X-Editor: I see you've re-added the information about Yiannopoulos having COVID-19, which is still only sourced to Newsweek. I removed this yesterday with a summary mentioning WP:NOTNEWS and WP:NEWSWEEK: [12]. I have concerns about using that Newsweek article as a source, namely the apparent lack of fact-checking that went into an article reporting that he "had a 93-degree fever". GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 20:09, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

I'd be fine with waiting for another source to cover this story. X-Editor (talk) 20:20, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

I'd prefer that plan of action. Would you self-revert? Firefangledfeathers (talk) 20:31, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

I removed it just now. XOR'easter (talk) 02:22, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

Thanks, I'm seeing another piece in PinkNews and nothing else so far. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 02:25, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

Milo's alleged covid situation is questionable, shady; he is a attention craving provocateur and cannot be taken seriously. "Pink" is gossip blog. He lied many times in order to become a headline news even in gossip blogs. (His whole life is a mess, especially his alleged marriage and "new" celibate life as a devout Catholic and "TruNews" contributor.) Moelscene (talk) 06:20, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

Alt-right

Milo has disavowed being a part of the alt-right movement on several occasions, as have most of the prominent right-wing pundits once associated with it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:189:8201:b000:41bd:a6ea:4466:f9bd (talk) 18:07, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

Please see past discussions on this topic at Talk:Milo_Yiannopoulos/Archive_3#He_is_not_alt_right and Talk:Milo_Yiannopoulos/Archive_5#Alt-right EvergreenFir (talk) 18:11, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

I've seen it. The consensus informed by reliable sources is that this appellation is inaccurate. If you feel it is not, you should provide uncontested reliable sources that demonstrate that in the article cum op cit. As it is, the lead is grossly inaccurate and unsupported. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:189:8201:B000:41BD:A6EA:4466:F9BD (talk) 02:56, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

Hard to prove one does not beat ones wife, when there is no wife and never has been. You would think further evidence would have emerged since accusations 2+ years ago.

If Milo Yiannopoulos is ALT-RIGHT the evidence is not in the article and beyond Buzzfeed is there anything "real"/ Loopbackdude (talk) 01:40, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

"Far right"

Many right-leaning people like Milo are constantly labelled as "far right" on Wikipedia. Nazism is far right; Milo is not far right.

I know Wikipedia lacks the academic rigour of normal Encyclopedias, but it does seem to have become a bastion of left-leaning contributors.

How many people are labelled "far left" by comparison? Barely anyone. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DiverseSynergy (talk • contribs) 16:23, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia reflects what is reported in independent, reliable sources. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 19:47, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

With a smattering of vice, buzzfeed and the other left trolls day jobs. Loopbackdude (talk) 01:41, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

Milo

I really don't think he is a alt right man. He just only supports freedom of speech and is quite hurtful on his words but to call him alt right when he is a Jewish man is kinda wrong. Because if you didn't know alt right I'd very white supremacist and anti semite and Milo is a jew 118.189.202.54 (talk) 18:22, 1 January 2022 (UTC)

This article is nothing but a bunch of content from a Buzzfeed article from 2017. Good luck trying to make any changes to this page. Your changes will immediately be deleted and GorillaWarfare here will ban you if you try to have a conversation about it. On top of that, you can expect your comments here to be periodically "archived" so that no one can tell what is going on with this page.

This page is a joke. It is unencyclopedic and unreadable. Milo deserves something better than this. But you will get banned right away if you try to change the fact that this article is nothing but a bloated Buzzfeed hit piece.

Myatrrcc (talk) 17:53, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

|}

List of Milo's books and Penn State appearance

Hi, I was hoping to add a list of books that Milo has published with the year and ISBNs as well as a sentence about his latest Penn State appearance. The second reference says that 10,000 people signed a petition to stop Milo. This was not a minor event. Here are some examples of Penn State coverage:

https://princetoniansforfreespeech.com/free-speech-hate-and-penn-state-what-first-amendment-experts-say-about-milo-yiannopoulos

https://www.thecollegefix.com/milo-yiannopoulos-is-back-on-campus-no-longer-gay-but-still-attracting-controversy/?fbclid=IwAR2nDZ3pGyvjEafLOp6Dxsw7qdn5wTxndhanX33uWkyJ_xxVJomTAggM684

https://www.psu.edu/news/administration/story/university-leaders-denounce-yiannopoulos-comments-and-tour/

https://www.collegian.psu.edu/news/campus/penn-state-students-condemn-message-of-milo-yiannopoulos-pray-the-gay-away-event/article_dd2c6864-3c31-11ec-84ec-8f38e9df8c30.html

https://www.collegian.psu.edu/news/campus/penn-state-students-against-sexist-violence-to-protest-milo-yiannopoulos-visit-uncensored-america/article_3f164da2-3736-11ec-ae27-2f2c60c84882.html

Here is a list of books with date and ISBN:

• Yiannopoulos, Milo (2017). Dangerous. ISBN 9780692893449.
• Yiannopoulos, Milo (2018). Diabolical: How Pope Francis Has Betrayed Clerical Abuse Victims Like Me—And Why He Has to Go. ISBN 9781642931631.
• Yiannopoulos, Milo (2019). How to Be Poor. ISBN 9789527303535.
• Yiannopoulos, Milo (2019). Middle Rages: Why the Battle for Medieval Studies Matters to America. ISBN 9789527303559.
• Yiannopoulos, Milo (2019). How to Be Straight. ISBN 9789527303566.
• Yiannopoulos, Milo (2020). The Trial of Roger Stone. ISBN 9789527303597.

I added one sentence about the Penn State event, but it was swiftly deleted. The list of books was also deleted. I would hope to see these basic facts included in the article.

Myatrrcc (talk) 04:10, 26 December 2021 (UTC) Myatrrcc (talk) 14:31, 26 December 2021 (UTC) Myatrrcc (talk) 02:19, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

Please achieve consensus for a contested change rather than continuously reinserting it—you are beginning to edit war. I agree with Glendale10 that the Penn State appearance does not seem to have the kind of coverage in quality sources to justify inclusion, and should be left out. The bibliography I don't really have strong feelings about one way or the other. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 04:47, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

Ban me all you want, GorillaWarfare. It's not like I am any to make any edits anyway. I saw this article, and it reminded me of you, GorillaWarfare. This is exactly how you operate on Wikipedia. You are using the platform to push your own left-wing political views.

In the case of this article, it is perfectly acceptable to have paragraph after paragraph based on a Buzzfeed piece. But GorillaWarfare threatens to ban me if I add something neutral like a list of books published or articles from the Penn State newspaper.

To make matters worse, people will swoop down and "archive" what I am writing here so no one can tell what is going on. Just wait for this thread to be "archived" and for me to be banned for trying to add a list of published books.

Myatrrcc (talk) 17:49, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

Where have I threatened to ban you? GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 17:52, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

Here comes GorillaWarfare within 1 minute of me posting something! You banned me in 2020, and you are threatening to ban me again in the comment above. Here is the article that reminds me of you: https://thecritic.co.uk/the-left-wing-bias-of-wikipedia/

Do you recognize that? This is exactly how you operate, GorillaWarfare! So ban me again. It's not like I am allowed to make any edits anyway. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Myatrrcc (talk • contribs) 17:56, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

You're yelling at me for responding promptly to a comment addressed to me?

Ah, I see now that I blocked you in 2020 (and also explained to you that blocks are different from bans back then). In that case you should be very familiar with the behavior requirements on pages such as this one, which are subject to discretionary sanctions. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 18:00, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

Glad that I am not banned. In that case, I will a section called "Works" that will include ISBNs.Myatrrcc (talk) 18:07, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

Self-published books are no more inherently significant than blog posts. Typically, bibliographies only include work which contributes to someone's notability. The standard way to decide this is by citing either reliable, independent sources, or at minimum, sticking to books published by reputable mainstream publishers, but even this is optional. The goal here is not to include minutia or promotional trivia, the goal should be to summarize reliable sources to provide context. Grayfell (talk) 05:28, 15 January 2022 (UTC) |}

New Photo

Can we get a photo for Milo that isn't 6 years old? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:601:511:1C1F:5880:B5D:1109:D1D9 (talk) 20:49, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

• • Only if someone can find a freely licensed one. He’s been kicked off basically everything and kicked out of basically everywhere so it’s hard to find anything about him or of him besides the stupid “ex-gay” crap. Dronebogus (talk) 23:26, 26 January 2022 (UTC)
    • The photo now in the article was taken around the time that he was most famous. Cullen328 (talk) 23:44, 26 January 2022 (UTC)
      • Wikipedia usually goes with the newest photo for living people I think, so that’s not really a reason to keep. The real reason is simply that this IS the newest photo we have. Dronebogus (talk) 23:59, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

        It’s remarkable how much this guy’s appearance changes over less than a decade. Dronebogus (talk) 07:06, 20 March 2022 (UTC)